Skip to main content

Full text of "Externally Mediated Self-confrontation: The Influence of Personality Variables on the Perception and Evaluation of Subject-Object Relations"

See other formats


bulletin from 



DEPARTMENT OF 
EDUCATIONAL AND 
PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH 

SCHOOL OF EDUCATION 
MALMO, SWEDEN 



educational 

and 



psychological 



interactions 



Bierschenk, B.: 

EXTERNALLY MEDIATED SELF-CONFRONTATION: 
THE INFLUENCE OF THE PERSONALITY IN 
PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF SUBJECT- 
OBJECT RELATIONS 



No. 52 



October 1975 



EXTERNALLY MEDIATED SELF- CONFRONTATION: THE INFLUENCE OF 
THE PERSONALITY IN PERCEPTION AND EVALUATION OF SUBJECT- 
OBJECT RELATIONS 



Bernhard Bierschenk 



Bierschenk, B. Externally mediated self- confrontation: The influence of 
the personality in perception and evaluation of subject- object relations. 
Educational and Psychological Interactions (Malmo, Sweden: School of 
Education), No. 52, 1975° 

In a self- confrontation experiment, student teachers have been put through 
an extensive test battery containing personality tests, cognitive tests and 
attitude tests. In this report an analysis is presented of the influence of 
personality on the student teachers' perception and evaluation during con- 
frontation with their own video- recorded micro-lessons. Using a number 
of multi-variate models for data analysis, prediction problems and rela- 
tions between the content of different groups of variables were studied. The 
student teachers' perception can best be predicted by means of personality 
variables that define an extroversion syndrome, social plasticity and child- 
centredness. The student teachers' evaluation can best be predicted by 
means of personality variables defining a syndrome consisting of a mixture 
of emotionality and sensitivity variables. 

Indexed: Self- confrontation, micro-lesson, teacher training, experiment, 
closed circuit television, multiple regression analysis,' personality assess- 
ment, perceptual development, self- evaluation. 



- 2 



CONTENTS 



1. SOME PREMISSES 



Page 



PERSONALITY VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF SUBJECT. 
OBJECT RELATIONS 



2.1 
2.2 



Choice of personality variables 
Description of subject-object relations 

2.2.1 Ego- ego relation 

2.2.2 Ego- pupil relation 
2. 2. 3 Ego-NPO relation 
2.2.4 Pupil -ego relation 
2. 2. 5 Pupil-pupil relation 
2. 2. 6 Pupil-NPO relation 

3. MULTIVARIATE DATA ANALYSES 

Multivariate analysis of variance 
Factorial discriminant analysis 
Multiple regression analysis - stepwise 
Canonical correlation analysis 

3.4.1 Perception of subject- object relations 

3.4.2 Evaluation of subject-object relations 

3.5 Multiple partial-correlation analysis 

4. SUMMARY 



3.1 
3.2 

3.3 
3.4 



5. REFERENCES 

6. APPENDICES 



2. 



3. 



4. 



Product- moment correlations of the 41 personality 
variables designated in Box 1 

The discrimination ability of 41 personality variables 
with respect to the experimental factors: Summary 
of MANOVA & FACDIS statistics 

Rank order of the prediction values of the personality- 
variables for the subject-object relations, based on R 

Product- moment correlations between the predictor 
variables designated in Box 3 and the subjectr object 
relations 



5 

7 

8 
8 
8 
9 
9 
9 

10 

10 
12 
14 
15 

17 

24 

32 

37 
44 
45 

1:1 



1:2-1:4 
2:1-2:6 

3:1-3:2 



1. SOME PREMISSES 



The theory that the most typical feature of the school of today and probably 
of tomorrow too, is and will be the desire to develop people's personalities, 
e.g. good self-knowledge, tolerance and insight into intrapersonal and 
interpersonal relations, is based on the following assumptions: The indi- 
vidual's personality consists of a number of learned "subject-object" rela- 
tions. Each individual has a basic view of him ir self" and this influences the 
individual's ability to behave in a predictable way in different situations 
and on different occasions. The individual's "self" is regarded as structured 
nvbi-nging experiences and "ego" as the personification of "self". This 
leads to the individual being able to see himself as an "object" built up of a 
large number of different experiences. 

Teaching skills are to a large degree a question of how predictable 
a teacher's behaviour is in the contact with the pupils and the extent to 
which he can direct himself in building up "interactive behavioural stra- 
tegies" and "interpersonal competence". For self- direction to be success- 
ful it is also necessary for the teacher to be sensitive to the development 
of a course of events so that he perceives it correctly. The teacher's per- 
ception and evaluation of a situation finally determine whether he has 
succeeded in correctly predicting the consequences of alternative behaviours. 

Using closed circuit television and video-recording, we can help the 
teachers to see themselves from "outside" and evaluate what is presented 
to them. The teacher becomes his own "external observer and commen- 
tator". The role of being one's own observer and commentator can result 
in the teacher gaining insight into intrapersonal and interpersonal pro- 
cesses and first-hand experiences, which cannot be mediated via other 
persons. 

Working on these premisses, a study will be made in this report of: 
"The influence of personality on the individual's perception and evaluation 
when confronted by his own behaviour in video-recorded situations. " 

The investigation of the influence of personality variables on the 
individual's perception and evaluation of his own video-recorded behaviours 
under various experimental conditions is a follow-up study of a self-con- 
frontation experiment, which was conducted in 1968 and 1969 at the Malm.6 
School of Education. The experiment is an attempt to modify student 
teachers' perception and evaluation by means of self- confrontation me- 
diated by video -recordings (factor T) and dyadic confrontation in the form 
of traditional tutoring (factor H). The teaching took the form of micro- 
lessons. The periods video-recorded lasted 15 minutes. To improve the 



4 



precision of the design, two so called precision factors were added to the 
factorial plan. Factor V symbolizes the measuring instrument: assessment 
and evaluation schedule F III and factor A states the aspects in this in- 
strument (perception, evaluation). Thus, the ANOVA model on which the 
experiment is based is A, U, T, H, I (TH), V, in which I denotes the indi- 
vidual factor. The model is presented in Table 1. 

Table 1 . The analysis of variance plan of the experiment 



Index 


A 


U 


T 


H 


I 


V 


Number of levels 
Size of population 


2 
2 


2 
2 


2 
2 


2 
2 


24 

CO 


79 
79 



Factor H: 
Factor T: 

Factor U: 

Factor V: 

Factor A: 

Factor I: 



Traditional tutoring in which h.. : tutoring, h ? : no tutoring 

Externally mediated self- confrontation via CCTV/VR, in 
which t 1 : self- confrontation, t • no self- confrontation 

Micro-lessons (length 15 min. ), in which u. : micro-lesson 1, 
u~: micro-lesson 2 

Assessment and evaluation schedule F III, in which v, , .... 
statements of which measuring instrument consists 

Aspects of the instrument, in which a. : perception, a-: eva- 
luation 

Female student teachers with A levels (the Swedish "student- 
examen"), term 2 at Malm5 School of Education 



r 79: 



The results of the experiment give rise to the hypothesis that the individual's 
personality influences the type and extent of changes in perception, evaluation 
and behaviour. In the earlier analyses the pattern in the F tests showed 
effects on factors A and U. The effects in factor A imply that the student 
teachers' perception (a.) and evaluation (a 2 ), apart from the experimental 
effect seen over all the statements, are different. The effects in factor U 
indicate that, irrespective of the influence, the student teachers modify 
their perceptions and evaluations from one teaching occasion to the next 
(see Biers chenk, 1972, pp. 138-140). Working partly from these results, 
this follow-up study will investigate the way in which different personality 
variables are related to the student teachers' perception of micro-lessons 
1 and 2, respectively, and to their evaluation of micro-lessons 1 and 2, 
as registered by means of the assessment and evaluation schedule F III. 
For this purpose a group test battery was administered in the context of 
the experiment. 



5 - 



2. PERSONALITY VARIABLES AS PREDICTORS OF SUB JECT -OBJECT 
RELATIONS 

A survey of the literature suggests that the individual's ego is deeply in- 
volved in deciding whether and to what extent perception, evaluation or 
behaviours are to be changed. The individual's ego consists of many atti- 
tudes that are related to the individual's self. When a situation or event 
requires the expression of these attitudes, the individual becomes personally 
involved. Personality assessments for the purpose of describing the indi- 
vidual's qualities, attitudes and state of mind at a given point in time can 
be made in many different ways. But if we are interested in being able to 
compare the personality of a particular individual with that of someone else 
in order to discover similarities and dissimilarities in the personalities, 
some common base is needed for the comparisons. One usual way is to let 
each individual estimate the extent to which a set of personality statements 
gives a correct description of his own or someone else's personality, 

A number of measuring instruments have been constructed, of which 
the assessment and evaluation schedule F III has been used as the main 
instrument. The purpose of this instrument was to measure the extent to 
which a presentation of subjective and objective information influences 
student teachers' perception and evaluation of their own teaching behaviours 
at different times. All the statements refer to "during this lesson ..." in 
order to associate the student teachers' reactions to the situation in question 
(episodic as opposed to dispositional assessments). The hypothesis as it 
had been formulated (Bierschenk, 1972, p. 83) was 

"that the perceptual (modification of external signs) and the emotional 
(modification of internal signs) defence is assumed to be followed by a 
focussing on cognitive and finally communicative aspects". 

2. 1 Choice of personality variables 

The measuring instruments used consist of a selection from a test battery 
which was constructed for research purposes (Bjerstedt & Sundgren,. 1968) 
and used in connection with the admittance of students to the class teacher 
line at Malm5 School of Education. But tests not included in this test battery 
in 1967 and 1968 have also been used. In addition some new constructions 
have been included. 

No detailed description of the individual tests and personality variables 
will be given here, however. A detailed description will be presented in 
another context. Research assistant Kerstin Skog-Ostlin at the department 
of educational research, Stockholm School of Education, has participated 



in the investigation of the influence of personality variables on the predic- 
tion of subject-object relations. Hereby she has worked out 
detailed descriptions of the variables given in Box 1 . Each variable has 
been assigned and presented (Skog-Ostlin, 1975). Also given are factor 
designations, the technical terms of the variables and the measuring in- 
strument in which the variable in question is included. 

Box 1 . The selection of personality variables from the group test battery 
used in the experiment 



No. Scale Designation 



Measuring 
instrument 



1 


1 




2 


3 


1 


4 


2 


5 


3 


6 


4 


7 


1 


8 


2 


9 




10 




11 




12 




13 




14 




15 




16 




17 




18 




19 




20 




21 





22 



29 
30 

31 



Acceptance of oneself 
Acceptance of others 

Social -communicative qualities 

Self-assertion 

Desire to be best and to be in the centre 

Self-reliance 

B Suggestibility to Authority 

E Ego Weakness: shift from neurotics 

A 
B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

G 

H 

I 

J 



Practical Role 
Status- striving Role 
Nurturant Role 
Nondirective Role 
Critical Role 
Preadult-fixated Role 
Orderly Role 
Dependent Role 
Exhibitionistic Role 
Dominant Role 



23 


F 


UI 6 


24 


G 


UI 7 


25 


H 


UI 8 


26 


I 


UI 9 


27 


L 


UI 12 


28 


M 


UI 13 



A UI 2 Affectothymia 

B UI 2 General Intelligence (bright) 

C UI 3 Ego Strength (emotional 
stability) 

E UI 5 Dominance or Ascendance 
(aggressive, competitive, 
stubbo rn) 

Surgency (enthusiastic, happy- 
go-lucky) 

Super- Ego Strength (conscien- 
tious, persistent, moralistic) 
Parmia (adventurous , socially 
bold) 

Premsia (tender-minded, sen- 
sitive, dependent) 
Protention (paranoid tendency, 
suspecting, jealous) 
Autia (bohemian introvert, ab- 
sentminded) 

N UI 14 Shrewdness (astute) 

O UI 15 Guilt Proneness (apprehensive, 
insecure) 

Q 1 UI 16 Radicalism (experimenting, 
analytical) 



Schedule F VIII 



Schedule F IX 



Cattell's O-A Battery 

Personal Opinions 

XP°) 

Stern and Ma sling s 

Teacher Preference 

Schedule, Form G 

(TPS) 



Cattell's Sixteen 
Personality Factor 
Questionnaire, Form 
B (Cattell's 16 PF) 



Box 


1. 


(Cont.) 












32 
33 




Qy UI 1 7 
Q, UI 18 


Self-sufficiency (resourceful) 
High S elf- sentiment 




34 




Q 4 UI 19 


(exacting will-power) 
High Ergic Tension (tense, 
overwrought) 




35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 


1 
2 
3 
4 

1 


Series 

Classifications 

Matrices 

Conditions (Topology) 

Total 

Field articulation 


Cattell 

The Culture Fair 
Intelligence Test, 
Scale 3, Form A 
(Cattell's 3:A) 
Hidden Designs 


41 


1 


Correction of pupils' behaviour 


Severity of Judge- 
ment 



The personality variables presented in Box 1 have been selected for the pur- 
pose of studying the relation between student teachers' perception and evalua- 
tion in self -confrontation processes and different personality features, 
namely: (l) ability to accept oneself and others, (2) ability to display social- 
communicative qualities, (3) ability to display integrative behaviour, (4) abi- 
lity to resist changes of opinion under the influence of various types of pro- 
vocation, (5) ability to maintain emotional balance, (6) possession of social 
behaviours, (7) ability to stimulate and control the teaching process, (8) cog- 
nitive ability, (9) ability to make perceptual analysis and (10) possession of 
high levels of energy and concentration. The correlations between the se- 
parate personality variables are presented in Appendix 1:1. The separate 
variables will be described in the cases where the variable in question proves 
to be important for prediction.. 



2. 2 Description of subject- object relations 

The development of the assessment and evaluation schedule F III is based on 
an extensive content analysis of student teachers' spontaneous oral comments 
to their self- confrontation experiences. Thus, the statements included in 
the mea.suring instrument reflect problem, areas on which the student 
teachers themselves have focussed attention. The problem areas that have 
emerged from the student teachers' simultaneous comments during the self- 
confrontation process have been categorized in accordance with six a priori 
constructed dimensions. These dimensions are defined in the assessment 
and evaluation schedule F III by a total of 79 statements with seven-point 
bipolar assessment scales. In this analysis the dimensions consist of sum- 
mation variables that can be described in the following way: 



- 8 - 

2* 2. 1 Ego -ego relation 

The perception and evaluation concern "I-me" relations. This relation 
means that the same person is both subject and object. The person expresses 
his own actions, expectations and attitudes towards himself. The relevance 
of a number of statements describing the individual, is assessed. The content 
of the statements that form this summation variable concern; (1) emotional 
state, (2) manner, (3) patience with pupils, (4) sense of humour, (5) voice 
variation, clarity of speech and vocal pitch, (6) posture, use of gestures, 
fiddling with objects and legibility of handwriting on blackboard, (7) factual 
knowledge, verbal skill and dialectal accent, (8) mental blocks and the use 
of rhetorical questions. 



2. 2. 2 Ego -pupil rel ation 

The perception and evaluation concern "I-they" relations. This relation 
means that the individual's actions are directed towards another person. 
This summation variable consists of the statements about another person, 
where this person is the object of the ego's actions, e. g. judgements, ex- 
pectations or attitudes. Actions go from ego to pupil as (a) teacher initia- 
tives and (b) teacher response. The content of the statements concerns: (l) 
explanations and descriptions, (2) support of the pupils, (3) making contact 
with and direction of pupils, (4) paying attention to different pupil types, 
(5) pupils' previous knowledge and participation in the teaching and (6) use 
of different questioning techniques. 

2. 2. 3 Ego-NPO relation 

The perception and evaluation concern !, I-it" relations. This relation means 
that the individual's actions are directed towards a non-personal object in 
the individual's surroundings. The functional quality of non-personal objects 
leads to their either fitting or not fitting into the individual's plans. This 
summation variable is formed of the statements about various demands that 
can be made on an object, which in its turn defines which possible effects 
can be expected. The content of these is (1) assessment of one's own teaching 
and the degree of the influence of the CCTV studio, (2) general and detailed 
planning of the lesson, (3) use of the blackboard and various teaching aids, 

(4) presentation of subject and communication of hard facts in the teaching, 

(5) linking up with pupils' initial knowledge and (6) digressions in presenta- 
tion of the subject. 



9 - 



2. 2. 4 Pupil- ego relation 



The perception and evaluation concern "they-me" relations. This relation 
implies that the individual concerned is the object of one or more persons' 
actions, expectations or attitudes. The statements defining this summation 
variable involve observations of other individuals ("centres of action"), 
taking into consideration that they are able to produce goal- directed actions. 
The content of the statements concerns: (1) obedience to student teacher's 
instructions. (2) contradictions by pupils, (3) pupils' questions concerning 
the subject and (4) the pupils give answers other than the intended ones. 

2. 2. 5 Pupil -pupil relation 

The perception and evaluation concern "they-them" relations. This relation 
only has indirect connections with the individual's personality. The state- 
ments that define this summation variable are to be assessed from the point 
of view of interactions, in which other individuals are both subject and ob- 
ject. The content of the statements concerns (1) the pupils' conversational 
discipline, (2) the pupils' conversation with each other outside the subject, 
(3) the pupils playing together and (4) the pupils' discussion of the subject. 

2. 2. 6 Pupil-NPO relation 

The perception and evaluation concern "they-it" relations. This relation 
implies that other persons as subject carry out actions involving non-per- 
sonal objects. The statements defining this summation variable are to be 
assessed with regard to actions, expectations and attitudes towards objec- 
tive factors in the individual's surroundings. The content of the statements 
concerns: (1) the pupils' interest in the subject, (2) the pupils' reactions to 
the student teachers' presentation of the subject, (3) the pupils' reactions to 
the subject and (4) the influence of the CCTV studio on the pupils. 

The student teachers' role as "external observer -commentator" of 
themselves involves an "external self- distancing in time and space". An 
optimum external self- differentiation, i. e. a distinct separation of the 
individual's self from the teaching process, could mean that the assessed 
behaviours are correctly perceived and evaluated. 

The hypothesis formulated when the experiment was planned (Bier- 
schenk, T>72, p 83) was 

"at the same rate as the individual's ability in self- distancing grows, his 
ability to take a more realistic or objective view increases. " 

Social interactions in teaching situations require that the teacher should be 

able to control his own behaviour in relation to real or anticipated reactions 

from other individuals. An effective self-control should facilitate the 

teacher's control of the components interacting in educational situations. 



- 10 - 

3. MULTIVARIATE DATA ANALYSES 

As the discussion above has shown, we are interested in studying the rela- 
tion between 41 different personality variables on the one hand and six 
different subject -object relations on the other. Since each group of variables 
contains more than two variables, multivariate analysis techniques will be 
used. By this means we can from a practical point of view study (1) pro- 
blems of prediction, and from a theoretical point of view (2) relations bet- 
ween the content of two or more groups of variables. The personality 
variables are, for practical reasons, taken both from tests administered 
to the student teachers on admittance to the school of education and from 
tests administered after the completion of the self- confrontation experiment 
It has also been considered desirable to investigate whether student teachers' 
assessments in the separate personality scales could be traced to the ex- 
perimental variables. It is above all the following questions that have guided 
the design of the plan of analysis: 

1. As a control measure: Are there any differences which indicate signi- 
ficant interactions between personality variables and the variables of 
the experiment ? 

2. To what extent if at all can the personality variables be used for pre- 
diction of the student teachers' assessments in the six subject-object 
relations, i. e. what is the number and content of mutually independent 
relations existing between the two groups of variables ? 

3. To what extent if at all can the personality variables successively pre- 
dict the student teachers' assessments in separate subject- object rela- 
tions ? 

3. 1 Multivariate analysis of variance 

Earlier analyses of the self- confrontation experiment have mainly made 
use of univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) but here data will be ana- 
lyzed by means of a multivariate model for analysis of variance (MANOVA). 
What we wish to investigate is whether and to what extent the populations 
have a common distribution. Using MANOVA we can'carry out tests for the 
following hypotheses: 

H ' The covariance matrices are equal 

H, : The personality variables have not been influenced by the experimental 
factors, e.g. the equality of dispersions 

H ? : The personality variables do not discriminate with regard to the expe- 
rimental groups, e. g, the equality of centroids 



- 11 - 

If Hp can be rejected it becomes possible to study the univariate F ratios 
that refer to separate variables, (n, B, acceptance of H- implies that the 
personality variables are without any traceable effects, ) Significant F-tests 
state which personality variables have contributed most to the discrimination 
between the experimental groups (see Cooley & Lohnes, 1971, pp. 230-231). 

The measuring instruments administered before and after the experi- 
ment are given in Box 2. 

Box 2. Time when measuring instruments were administered 



Measuring instrument 




Time when administered 


Schedule F VIII 


(F VIII) 


after the experiment 


Schedule F IX 


(F IX) 


after the experiment 


Personal Opinions 


(PO) 


after the experiment 


Preferences in School Situations 


(TPS) 


after the experiment 


Cattell's 16 PF 


(16 PF) 


after the experiment 


Cattell's 3:A 


(3:A) 


before the experiment 


Hidden Designs 


(HD) 


after the experiment 


Severity of Judgement 


(SJ) 


before the experiment 

. . ■ ■ 



Before investigating more closely the prediction value of the variables with 
regard to the different subject- object relations, we shall study whether the 
experimental influence has had any effect on the measuring instruments 
listed in Box 2. As a result of the restrictions in the experimental design 
(n = 24 per cell) and in the MANOVA program (since 41 > 24), it has been 
necessary to make different groups. The following groupings were made: (1) 
F VIII + PO + TPS; i. e. 14 variables; (2) 16 PF, i. e. 16 variables; (3) 
F VIII + PO + TPS + 3:A + HD + SJ, i. e, 22 variables. In this context F IX 
had to be excluded. This test was chosen since it is a new construction and 
the correlation matrice for the 41 personality variables showed that there 
are substantial correlations with such scales as were to be included in the 
analysis. 

Despite the fact that it seems unlikely that data concerning intelligence 
variables collected before the experiment was carried out, could have been 
influenced by the experimental conditions, Cattell's 3:A was included. The 
reasons for this inclusion are that we could not dismiss (1) the problems of 
inter cor related predictors and (2) the interaction between them. Further- 
more the inclusion of Cattell's 3:A was based on high reliability coefficients 
reported in the literature and a desire to get an prediction measure equiva- 
lent to the B-factor in Cattell's 16 PF. Of course, the reader's opinion 
could well be, that the factors of schedule F IX would have been the more 
appropriate ones for several reasons: (1) the test has been administered 
after the experiment, (2) more information of its reliability is needed and 



- 12 - 

(3) the intercorrelations and interactions of these scales with other variables 
are of at least equal importance. But we have, perhaps over- cautiously, not 
included the latter test because of the risk for a contribution of spurious 
variance to the analysis. The selection was also based on the desire to 
have intelligence variables well-represented in the analysis. 

3. 2 Factorial discriminant analysis 

Factorial discriminant analysis (FACDIS) can be used to find the best linear 
functions for a description of the differences between the influence groups 
in the experiment. When we compare two or more groups with each other, 
it will namely not only be of interest to study whether the groups differ sig- 
nificantly, but it will also be important that we can examine the measuring 
variable vector to find the personality variable(e) that contribute(s) most to 
this difference. While we have been able with MANOVA to test hypotheses 
HL and H ? , we can with FACDIS study the centroids that refer to factors H 
and T in the self -confrontation experiment. 

The results of MANOVA and FACDIS are presented in appendix 1, 
Table 2. In this table the results of the separate analyses are summarized. 
For each analysis are given the omnibus test for the variance-covariance 
matrices (H, ), and the omnibus test for the H- , T- and HT-effects (H_). 
Wiiks's generalized eta (n, ) which states the degree of association between 
the grouping and measuring variables is also presented. The power of the 
test battery's discrimination ability is not given but can easily be calculated 
since Wilks's lamda (A.) equals 1 - r\ (see Cooley & Lohnes, 1971, p. 312). 
As is shown in appendix 1 , Table 2, H^. is, according to our expectation, 
accepted. No differences are proven when all personality variables are 
used (a < . 01). 

The testing of H-> shows significant differences in analyses 1 and 3, 
however. Since H-> is rejected (a < .01), we can henceforth examine more 
closely which personality variables have contributed most to the discrimi- 
nation between the centroids. The univariate F ratios for analysis 1 are 
presented in appendix 1, Table 3. As can be seen from Table 3, the ana- 
lysis shows significant effects as a result of the interaction between tutoring 
and self- confrontation. This means that all reliable information regarding 
the interaction effect is to be found in the third dimension. In order that the 
separate variables may be studied, the contrasts and the univariate F ratios 
are given in Appendix 1, Table 4. Table 4 shows that it is the variables 
"Suggestibility to Authority" (7) and Dependent Role (16) that have contri- 
buted significantly to the discrimination of the group centroids. It is the 



- 13 - 

student teachers who received both traditional tutoring and externally 
mediated self -confrontation via CCTV/VR and the student teachers who 
were given no influence at all (the experiment groups during spring term 
1969), who deviate negatively from the student teachers who participated 
in the experiment in the spring term of 1968. Positive values regarding 
variable 7 are interpreted as signs of a tendency to be impressionable to 
authority. This would mean, if any authority influence was involved, that 
the tutoring factor would have caused higher values than the self -confronta- 
tion factor. This is not the case, however. Instead the effect appears to 
have been caused by the circumstance that the experiment was carried out 
in two stages. In Bierschenk (1972, p. 105) possible effects of this procedure 
are discussed. It is said among other things that the groups participating in 
1968 showed a "higher tolerance level". It can be added that in the spring 
term of 1969 the testings caused a considerable amount' of irritation, owing 
to the extremely fine weather at the time. It appears to be very improbable 
that the student teachers participating in the experiment in 1968 should be 
more open to influence than those taking part in 1969. In any case there is 
no reason to believe that the experimental influence can have caused this 
effect. 

The effect in the variable "Dependent Role" indicates that the student 
teachers who have high points on this scale try to escape from their lack 
of assurance by relying on superiors. The .pattern in the contrast is the 
same as for variable 7, which means that the same interpretation can be 
applied, namely that it is unlikely that this effect has been caused by an ex- 
perimental influence, while. the' hypothesis that the student teachers tested 
in the spring term 1968 are more dependent than those from the spring 
term of 1969 can be excluded entirely. 

The multivariate significance tests for analyses 1 and 3 are described 
in Appendix 1, Tables 5 and 6. Since no significant H 2 can be established 
for analyses 2 and 4, the contrasts are not given. As can be seen from 
Table 6 (the contrasts for analysis 3) the discrimination depends on the 
same personality variables as those discussed in analysis 1, namely 
"Suggestibility to Authority" and "Dependent Role". 

To sum up, the separate analyses have not shown any experimental 
effect on any of the personality variables studied. This result means that 
our next step can be to study which combination of the personality variables 
produces an optimum reduction of the error variance in the subject -object 

relations, i.e. substantially increases the squared multiple correlation 2 

2 
(R Jj» . 01). This question will be studied by means of a multiple regression 

analysis carried out in a stepwise manner. 



- 14 - 



3. 3 Multiple regression analysis - stepwise 

By means of a multiple regression analysis, we can use the 41 personality 
variables to predict quantitatively the student teachers' assessments in the 
six subject-object relations. For this purpose Dixon's (1 9 70) computer 
programme BMD02R has been used, which calculates a sequence of mul- 
tiple linear regression equations in a stepwise manner, At each step a new 
variable is added to the regression equation. The variable introduced into 
the equation is the one leading to the greatest reduction of the error variance. 
The criterion used in this analysis is an F- ratio. > 1 . 00, This criterion 
determines whether or not a new variable should be added and if so, which 
one. If the removal of any one of the preexisting predictors does not lead 
to a significant drop in the multiple R, the predictor is eliminated. The 
stepwise procedure appears to be a very useful and powerful instrument in 
selecting a manageable number of the available personality variables for 
the purpose of an "adequate" prediction of the student teachers' assessments 
in the subject -object relations defined. The stepwise procedure combines 
the features of "forward selection" and "backward elimination" at each 
step (see Tatsuoka, 1973, p. 278). 

Multiple regression analyses were carried out separately for the student 
teachers' perception during micro-lessons 1 and 2 respectively and for 
their evaluation in the same way. These four analyses have been evaluated 
by research assistant Kerstin Skog-Ostlin who has also presented the table 
material for. these analyses and the procedure used in evaluating the ana- 
lyses. 

Box 3 . Ranking of personality variables for perception and evaluation 
according to the stepwise multiple regression analysis 



Rank 


Variable 


Designation 


Measuring 




No. 




instrument 


Perception 






1 


1.4 


Preadult-fixated Role 


TPS, A 


2 


25 


Parmia 


16 PF, H. 


3 


34 


High Ergic Tension 


16 PF, Q 

SJ * 


4.5 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


4.5 


21 


Ego Strength 


16 PF, C 


6 


4 


Self-assertion 


Schedule F IX 


7 


12 


Nondirective Role 


TPS, D 


8 


26 


Premsia 


16 PF, I 


9 


5 


Desire to be best and to be in the centre 


Schedule F IX 


10 


3 


Social -communicative qualities 


Schedule F IX 


11 


35 


Series 


Cattell 3:A 


12 


37 


Matrices 


Cattell 3 -A 


14.5 


8 


Ego- Weakn es s 


PO, E 


14.5 


15 


Orderly Role 


TPS, G 


14. 5 


23 


Surgency 


16. PF, F 


14.5 


36 


Clas sifi cation s 


Cattell 3:A 



- 15 - 



Box 3. 


(Cont. ) 






Evaluation 






1 


30 


Guilt Pr oneness 


16 PF, O 


2 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


SJ 


3 


37 


Matrices 


Cattell 3 -A 


4. 5 


28 


Autia 


16 PF, M 


4.5 


16 


Dependent Role 


TPS, H 


6 


23 


Surgency 


16 PF, M 


7 


13 


Critical Role 


TPS, E 


9.5 


6 


Self-reliance 


Schedule F IX 


9.5 


12 


Nondirective Role 


TPS, D 


9.5 


20 


General Intelligence 


16 PF, B 


9.5 


35 


Series 


Cattell 3:A 


12. 5 


4 


Self-assertion 


Schedule F IX 


12.5 


25 


Parmia 


16 PF, H 


15. 5 


11 


Nurturant Role 


TPS, C 


15. 5 


14 


Preadult-fixated Role 


TPS, F 


17 


19 


A f f ec tothymia 


16 PF, A 


18 


18 


Dominant Role 


TPS, J 



The ranking in Box 3 means that the variables were weighted in relation to 

2 
both the R size and the number of times the variable had figured among the 

first 10 ranked places (cf App. 2), Thus, the stepwise multiple regression 
analysis has resulted in a set of personality variables that will permit an 
"optimal" prediction. The variables having the highest partial correlation 
with the criterion are included in the equation. Furthermore, the stepwise 
procedure examines each of the preexisting predictors for possible elimi- 
nation. According to Tatsuoka (1973, p. 278} the stepwise multiple regres- 
sion analysis is "the most widely understood of multivariate procedures in 
educational research . . . ". Nevertheless it may be helpful to point out that 
the method of analysis outlined in the following Chapter differs in one im- 
portant aspect from the multiple regression analysis. 

The analysis in the next Chapter is symmetric with respect to the two 
sets of variables. Its function is to determine a weighted linear combina- 
tion of one set of variables that correlates maximally with an optimally 
weighted linear combination of the other set. The resulting maximum corre- 
lation is called the first canonical correlation coefficient (R ). By means of 
R we can determine a subset of personality variables which permits the 
best (maximal) prediction of the student teachers' assessments of subject- 
object relations. 



3. 4 Canonical correlation analysis 

The problems in this investigation, which will be studied by means of the 
canonical correlation analysis model, are: 



-16- 

1. What is the smallest number of personality features that must be con- 
trolled or extracted in order to eliminate all essential linear relations 
between the set of personality variables and the set of subject- object 
relations ? 

2, What qualities are represented by the personality features that have 
been extracted? 

The number of traits that must be controlled equals the number of de- 
monstrable canonical relations between the two sets. The purpose of a 
canonical correlation analysis is to find a weighted personality profile and 
a weighted profile of subject -object relations under the restriction of maxi- 
mal correlation, Tatsuoka (1971, p. 183) states: 

"Canonical analysis helps answer this ^association] question by determining 
linear combinations of the personality scales that are most highly correlated 
with linear combinations of the achievement tests. " 

Since canonical correlations (R ) function as summarizing measures and 

are thus not suited to more detailed analysis, the following analysis will be 

based on Stewart & Love's (1968, pp. 160-163) index for the determination 

of the redundancy in the first set of variables, given another set of variables, 

i. e. similarity between both sets. According to Stewart & Love (1968, p. 

162) 

"the proportion of redundant variance associated with a given root is in- 
structive in determing whether the root deserves interpretation and ' 
further attention . . . ". 

By using Stewart & Love's index we gain increased possibilities in the 

interpretation of canonical correlation analyses. We can study: 

1. how many dimensions are necessary if we are to be able to extract an 
essential part of asymmetrical variance 

2. how great a part of the common variance refers to the first, second, 
third etc dimension and 

3. the part of variance (proportion of trace) of a set of predictor and 
criteria variables respectively that is predictable. 

But most important to the following analysis is Cooley & Lohnes (1971 , p. 

171) statement: 

"Before we had the new coefficient of redundancy we were prone to look 
at Rq as a measure of the overlap between the two batteries. Actually, it 
is only a measure of the overlap between the two canonical variates x and y, 
and these may or may not be important factors of their respective batteries. " 

But if one wishes to draw conclusions about the minimum number of cano- 
nical relations known to exist in the population, a test of significance be- 



- 17 - 

comes necessary. The fact that high canonical correlation may be found 
despite low redundancy values (see Cooley & Lohnes , 1971 , p. 181) indi- 
cates that practically no overlap exists between the two sets of variables. 
Therefore in our discussion we will not discriminate between significant 
and non- significant relations, 

3. 4. 1 Perception of subject-object relations 

Tables 2-9 give the canonical correlations, significance values, redundancy 
index and component structures. After this analysis the canonical loadings 
are studied in more detail. As in all the earlier analyses within the pro- 
ject "Self- confrontation in teacher training's the criterion used is r j> .30. 
The variables that attain this value are considered to contribute substantially 
to the maximally correlated dimensions. In Table 2 the summarized mea- 
surements for the student teachers' perception during micro-lesson 1 are 
given. 

Table 2. Canonical correlation between personality variables and subject- 



obji 


act relations: X -test and 


redundancy index 


Roots R 
c 


R 2 
c 


Observed 
X 2 value 


df 


A 


z 99 = 2. 31 


1 .64 


.41 


119. 10 


96 


.240 


1. 61 


2 .49 


.24 


75.57 


75 


.415 




3 .44 


.19 


52.41 


56 


.534 




4 .41 


.16 


34.53 


39 


.661 




5 .36 


.13 


19, 53 


24 


.791 




6 .30 


.09 


7.91 


11 


.910 




Wilks A = . 


240 










Personality 


variabl 


es 


Subject-obj< 


set relations 


V 
P 


dp 


R t 


V 
c 


dc 


R t 


1 .07 


.03 


.38 


.33 


.13 


,52 


2 .08 


.02 


.25 


.11 


.03 


.12 


3 .06 


.01 


.13 


.28 


.05 


.20 


4 .07 


.01 


.13 


.08 


.01 


.04 


5 .06 


.01 


.13 


.11 


.01 


.04 


6 .04 


.00 


.00 


.09 


.01 


.04 


.38 


.08 


1.00 


1.00 


.25 


1.00 



R, 



R c 

V : 
c 



R 



dc' 



Canonical correlation 

Squared canonical correlation 

Extracted variance from the 
set of criteria variables 

Variance extracted from the 
set of predictor variables 

Redundancy index for the pre- 
diction of the subject-object 
relations when the assess- 
ments of personality variab- 
les are known 



R 



dp' 



K, 



Redundancy index for the pre- 
diction of the personality va- 
riables v/hen the assessments 
of the subject-object relations 
are known 

Proportion of the total redun- 
dant variance 



18 



As can be seen from Table 2, no significant correlated canonical dimension 
can be shown for the student teachers' perception during micro-lesson 1. 
The six canonical dimensions extract 38% of the variance in the set of per- 
sonality variables. In both sets of variables it is the first three roots that 
are responsible for > 10% of the total redundant variance. When the student 
teachers' assessment in the personality variables is known, it is possible 
to state at the same time 25% of the variance in the subject-object relations, 
i. e. 25% redundant or overlapping variance exists. In addition the correla- 
tion (R ) is relatively much higher. than any of the correlations between the 
original variables (seeApp. 1:1). But we are unable to add anything to the 
statement that there are correlated canonical dimensions (significant or not). 
Only examination of the canonical components can make it possible to 
describe and interpret the three dimensions that are at the same time 
responsible for R > . 10. 

Table 3 presents the observed correlations between the original variables 
in a group of variables and a canonical vector in the respective groups, i. e. 
"canonical loadings". Darlington & Weinberg (1973, p. 444) state that 

! 'the observed correlations between original variables in a set and a canoni- 
cal variable in that set ' is a measure of 'the relative size of the correla- 
tions of those variables with the unobserved trait which the canonical va- 
riate predicts. " 

Thus, the canonical correlation indicates how well the nature of a trait can 

be inferred. A closer examination of the component structure in Table 3 

shows that personality variables Nos. 3, 25 and 34 correlate positively with 

the first predictor vector, while variable No. 36 correlates negatively. The 

comparatively highest correlation with the first criterion vector is to be 

found in the pupil-ego relation. But the other relations, with the exception 

of the pupil-NPO relation, also show substantial correlations. 

The personality features that are important for the student teachers' 

perception during micro-lesson 1 will be described in more detail: 



Table 


i 3. 


Canonical component structure, Micro-lesson 1: 


Percept 


ion 


Var 


iable 


Designation Component 




No. 




1 


2 


3 


Persona] 


ity variables 






14 




Preadult-fixated Role . 13 


.37 


. 07 


25 




Parmia . 42 


-.07 


-. 10 


34 




High Ergic Tension . 32 


.36 


-. 21 


41 




Severity of Judgement . 27 


-.11 


-, 24 


21 




Ego Strength . 24 


-.57 


.04 


4 




Self-assertion -. 22 


. 26 


-.39 


12 




Nondirective Role -. 09 


-.08 


.09 


26 




Premsia -. 24 


-.44 


-.17 


5 




Desire to be best and to be in the centre -. 05 


-.53 


-.16 



19 - 



Table 3. (cont. ) 








3 Social- communicative qualities 


. 57 


-.04 


. 11 


35 Series 


. 15 


.30 


-.42 


37 Matrices 


-.06 


.00 


-. 17 


8 Ego Weakness 


. 20 


.14 


.31 


15 Orderly Role 


-. 18 


-.02 


.49 


23 Surgency 


. 00 


.10 


-. 17 


36 Classifications 


-.37 


.02 


. 12 


Subject- object relations 








1 Ego- ego relation 


. 50 


-.45 


.26 


2 Ego -pupil relation 


. 43 


-.01 


. 70 


3 Ego-NPO relation 


. 58 


.05 


.61 


4 Pupil- ego relation 


.95 


.09 


. 05 


5 Pupil -pupil relation 


.48 


.67 


.28 


6 Pupil-NPO relation 


.27 


.04 


. 80 



Social-communicative qualities towards known and unknown groups of various 
kinds are based on self-confidence, authority and verbal ability. The indi- 
vidual is confronted with problems in concretely described situations such 
as (1) having a pronounced opinion, (2) stating one's opinion, (3) maintaining 
a train of thought, (4) mastering distractions, (5) presenting a subject, (6) 
being verbally receptive. High values indicate that the individual believes 
that it would be easy to master the problems described. The factor corre- 
lates (r = +41) with Cattell's n Parmia" and can be described as a factor be- 
longing to the extroversion syndrome. The factor measures the polarity 
"e go - en vir onment ". 

Parmia characterizes individuals who (1) demonstrate an uninhibited social 
behaviour as a consequence of a lack of shyness, (2) are inhibited very little 
by dangers and demands in their environment, (3) actively seek contact 
with others, (4) find it easy to talk to others. This lack of receptiveness 
to inhibitions is assumed to be largely constitutional. 

High Ergic Tension characterizes individuals with changeable moods and 
heightened emotional tension. They are e.g. easily irritated, restless, 
feel tense and get easily upset. This factor expresses temporary emotional 
reactions to situations. 

Clas sifi cation s measure the individual's ability in deductive reasoning. This 
test loads on "Fluid General Intelligence", which is a second order factor 
(see Pawlik, 1968, pp. 358-359). The test is intended to measure the "g" 
factor (general ability factor). But this sub-test is also to some extent de- 
pendent on upbringing and education. 



- 20 - 

To sum up, the student tecchers' perception in the first lesson can be 
predicted maximally by personality features that define the dimension 
"introversion-extroversion". The student teachers who present an open 
attitude to their environment, who seek intensive contact with their environ- 
ment and who find it easy to talk to others are positive in their perception 
of the pupil-ego relation. But temporary emotional reactions to situations 
and the student teachers' deductive ability are also important for the pre- 
diction of the "they- me" relation, i. e. the student teachers' perception of 
the pupils' actions, expectations or attitudes towards themselves, defined 
by the statements dealing with obedience to student teachers' instructions 
or contradictions from pupils. 

The other canonical component shows that personality variables No. 34 
and 35 correlate positively with the predictor vector, while Nos, 21, 25 and 
26 correlate negatively. The pupil -pupil relation has the highest correlation 
with the criterion vector. Regarding the third canonical component, Table 
3 shows that variable No. 15 correlates positively with the predictor vec- 
tor, while Nos. 4 and 35 show negative correlations. Relations 6, 2 and 3 
correlate relatively highly with the criterion vector. The implications of 
these two components will not be further discussed, however. 

The canonical correlation analysis of the student teachers' perception 
during micro-lesson 2 is presented in Table 4. 

Table 4. Canonical correlations between personality variables and subject- 
object relations: X test and redundancy index 



Roots 


R 
c 


R 2 
c 


Observed 
X value 


df 


A 


" ' 

z 9.9 = 2 - 31 


1 


.68 


.47 


153. 


88 


96 


.158 


3.72 


2 


.64 


.41 


101. 


32 


75 


.297 


2.03 


3 


.50 


.25 


56. 


89 


56 


,506 




4 


.43 


.18 


33. 


00 


39 


.674 




5 


.36 


.13 


16. 


25 


24 


.823 




6 


.24 


.06 


4. 


84 


11 


.944 




Wilks' 


sA = 


.158 










* 


Personality 


variables 






Subje 


ct- object 


-relations 




V 


R, 


R. 




V 


R, 


R * 




P 


dp 


t 




c 


etc 


t 


1 


.07 


.03 


.30 




.19 


.09 


.35 


2 


.07 


.03 


.30 




.15 


.06 


.23 


3 


.05 


.01 


.10 




.08 


.02 


.08 


4 


.08 


.01 


.10 




.37 


.07 


.'27 


5 


.08 


.01 


.10 




.09 


.01 


.04 


6 


.06 


.00 


.00 




.12 


.01 


.04 




.40 


.10 


1.00 




1.00 


.26 


1.00 



For explanation of symbols, see Table 2 



As can be seen from Table 4, there is a significant correlated canonical 
dimension in lesson Z, In this lesson the six dimensions extract 40% of 



21 



the variance in the set of personality variables, i. e. +2%. Compared to 
micro-lesson 1 three dimensions are responsible for an essential part of 
the variance. At least two if not three independent canonical components 
are needed for an adequate representation of the structure. The first com- 
ponent is, however, responsible for the greater part of the variance. In 
the subject -object relations there is 26% redundant variance, i. e. +1% 
compared to lesson 1. The first and second R are somewhat higher and at 
least equally high respectively as the first correlation in lesson 1. The 
canonical components are presented in Table 5. 

Table 5 shows how the first predictor vector correlates positively with 
variables 8, 14 and 23, while 34 and 4 define the negative pole of the vector. 
All relations with ego as subject correlate substantially with the criterion 
vector. The most important, however, is the ego-NPO relation. 

Regarding the student teachers' perception during micro-lesson 2, the 
following features of personality are the most important for predicting the 
student teachers' perception of the ego-NPO relation: 

Table 5 . Canonical component structure. Micro-lesson 2: Perception 



Variable Designation 


C ompon ent 






No. 




1 


2 


3 


4 


14 


Preadult-fixated Role 


. 35 


. 07 


-.32 


-. 31 


25 


Parmia 


. 08 


.67 


. 02 


-. 25 


34 


High Ergic Tension 


-. 32 


. 08 


. 04 


-. 04 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


-. 03 


. 25 


-.17 


.15 


21 


Ego Strength 


. 27 


-. 13 


.07 


-. 04 


4 


Self-assertion 


-.44 


.15 


. 00 


.00 


12 


Nondirective Role 


-.06 


-.12 


-.22 


-.29 


26 


Emotional sensitivity 


-. 12 


-.16 


. 10 


-. 08 


5 


Desire to be best and to be in the centre 


-. 06 


-. 06 


-.03 


-. 07 


3 


Social-communicative qualities 


. 13 


. 54 


-.18 


.07 


35. 


Series 


-. 08 


-. 04 


-.47 


-.42 


37 


Matrices 


-.21 


-.21 


-.54 


-.41 


8 


Ego Weakness 


.53 


.06 


-. 22 


-.01 


15 


Orderly Role 


.16 


-. 13 


-.19 


. 38 


23 


Surgency 


. 30 


. 28 


-. 00 


-.16 


36 


C la s sif i cat ion s 


-.23 


-.31 


. 17 


-.64 


Subject- 


object relations 










1 


Ego- ego relation 


. 57 


. 60 


. 31 


.45 


2 


Ego- pupil relation 


. 30 


.11 


.06 


.79 


3 


Ego-NPO relation 


. 82 


, 20 


-, 22 


. 33 


4 


Pupil-ego relation 


.01 


.68 


-.52 


. 33 


5 


Pupil-pupil relation 


-. 02 


.22 


. 12 


. 70 


6 

i | 


Pupil-NPO relation 


.18 


-. 04 


-.26 


. 81 



Ego Weakness: shift from neurotics . Individuals with ego weakness are in 
their answers "easily" influenced by how a group of "neurotics" have 



- 22 - 

answered, in a survey. They show changes !, from neurotics", which are 
taken as a sign of "ego weakness", This scale is related to Cattell's 
"social plasticity". 

Preadult-fixated Role means that teachers with high points on this scale 
identify more easily with children than with adults. They obtain their satis- 
faction from the company of children. Their behaviour is thought to reflect 
an attitude of idealization of childhood (Sundgren, 1967, p. 47), 

Surgency describes individuals who are cheerful, talkative and expressive, 
bubbling over with energy and activity. This factor is considered to be of 
the most essential components defining extroversion. 

High Ergic Tension. This factor has been described (see p. 19). 

Self - as s er tion , This factor measures the individual's attitude to other indi- 
viduals or groups concerning the ability to assert one's own opinions and act 
according to one's own norms, irrespective of whether authorities are of a 
different opinion. Attempts to influence others are also included. The factor 
describes a continuum with the poles self-assertion-adjustment or I-we. In 
the situations described concretely the individual is confronted with the 
following problems: (1) attacking the opinions of others, (2) discussing un- 
known subjects, (3) influencing pupils with a different opinion, (4) asserting 
one's own opinion in opposition to someone older, (5) rejecting unfair cri- 
ticism, (6) keeping people at a distance, (7) being able to put on an act, 
(8) acting in accordance with accepted norms and (9) accepting criticism. 
High points indicate extroversion. This factor correlates (r - -39) with 
Cattell's "Parmia". 

To sum up, the student teachers' perception can also in the second 
lesson be predicted maximally by personality features defining the dimen- 
sion "introversion- extroversion ". As in the first lesson, the student 
teachers' temporary emotional reactions to situations play an important 
part in the prediction, although the factor now shows a negative correlation. 
However, no intelligence factor is to be found among the predictors of the 
first canonical component. The two factors, "Ego Weakness" and "Preadult- 
fixated Role" indicate that both child- centredness and uncertainty about 
one's own person have been important for the perception of the "I-it" rela- 
tion in lesson 2, i.e. the perception of the functional qualities of non- per- 
sonal objects with regard to whether or not they fit in with one's own plans. 
The prediction mainly concerns the statements dealing with the planning 
and assessment of lessons, the use of teaching aids, disposition on the 
blackboard, communication of hard facts and linking up with the pupils' 
initial knowledge. 



23 



As can be seen from Table 4, a relatively large part of the total re- 
dundant variance is also found in the canonical dimensions 2 and 4, While 
the second dimension does not contribute further information in addition to 
that presented for the student teachers' perception during micro-lesson 1, 
the fourth dimension should be ahle to provide even more information. 
Variable No, 15, i.e. "Orderly Role", correlates positively with the fourth 
predictor vector. The negatively correlated variables are Nos. 36, 35 and 
37, Variables Nos. 6, 2 and 5 correlate substantially with the criterion 
vector. This fourth component indicates that (1) the teacher's use of dis- 
ciplinary rules that provide assurance in personal relations with the pupils 
(cf. ego weakness), (2) the teacher's "fluid general intelligence" and (3) the 
teacher's attitude to the idealization of childhood are all valuable for the 
prediction of the "they -it" relation, i, e. the pupils' reaction to non-personal 
objects (interest in the subject), the student teacher's own presentation of 
the subject and the influence of the CCTV studio, These personality fea- 
tures are also important for the student teachers' perception of the "I -they" 
relation, i.e. how they themselves react towards the pupils as objects (e.g. 
non-verbal contact with or support of pupils) and for the "they-them" rela- 
tion, i. e. how the pupils act between themselves (e. g. the pupils' conversa- 
tional discipline). 

The discussion has shown how the student teachers' perception in les- 
sons 1 and 2 can on all essential points be explained by means of the first 
canonical component in the analysis concerned. If, however, a more de- 
tailed description is desired, components 2 and 3 should also be studied in 
lesson 1 , while in lesson 2 components 2 and 4 should be examined, since 
they show redundant variance (R > . 10). Personality features that are of 
importance for the prediction load on a second order or "second- stratum" 
factor, Qj (Cattell et al. , 1970, p. 112), which refers to "sociable" behaviour. 
The poles of that factor are "exvia" and "invia". The more popular lables 
are extroversion and introversion. Cattell's primary factors A, E, H and 
Q^ load on this factor. Thus, extroversion is the fundamental personality 
feature (3, 4, 25, 23), but it is modified by a factor that describes the 
student teachers' strength of ego (8) and idealization of childhood (14), A 
part is also played by a factor describing the student teachers' emotional 
reactions to situations (34). Further evidence in favour of this interpreta- 
tion was provided by the examination of the second, third and fourth cano- 
nical components. There it emerged that the factor describing preoccupa- 
tion with disciplinary rules in order to acquire assurance in personal rela- 
tions with the pupils (15) is also important. Finally the intelligence variables 



- 24 - 



(35, 36) showed no substantial positive correlations with the vectors, but 
when an association occurred, these variables proved to be negative by- 
correlated with the vectors considered. 



3. 4. 2 Evaluation of subject -object relations 

As a result of the stepwise processed multiple regression analysis (cf Box 
3), the canonical correlation analyses of student teachers' evaluations have 
been carried out with partly different personality variables. The result for 
micro-lesson 1 is presented in Table 6. 

Table 6. Canonical correlations between personality variables and subject- 
object relations: X 2 test and redundancy index 



Roots R 
c 


R 2 
c 


Observed 
X ^ value 


df 


A 


z 99 = 2.31 


1 .65 


.42 


109. 


51 


102 


.267 


.55 


2 .52 


.27 


64. 


72 


80 


.459 




3 .41 


.17 


38. 


89 


60 


.623 




4 .37 


.14 


23. 


97 


42 


. 749 




5 .27 


.08 


11. 


56 


26 


.870 




6 .24 


.06 


5. 


07 


12 


.941 




Wilks'sA = 


. 267 












Personality 


variables 






Subject-object relations 


V 
P 


R , 
dp 


R t 




V k 


R dk 


t 


1 .07 


.03 


.38 




.14 


.06 


.35 


2 .06 


.02 


.25 




.13 


.03 


.18 


3 .08 


.01 


.13 




.18 


.03 


.18 


4 .06 


.01 


. 13 




.19 


.03 


.18 


5 .07 


.01 


.13 




.13 


.01 


.06 


6 .05 


.00 


.00 




,23 


. 01 


.06 


.39 


.08 


1.00 




1.00 


.17 


1.00 



For explanation of symbols, see Table 2 

As can be seen from Table 6 there is no significant correlated canonical 
dimension. The six dimensions extract in lesson 1 3 9% of the variance in 
the set of personality variables. The first four dimensions are responsible 
for a proportion of the total redundant variance that is i> . 10 on both sides. 
However, the first dimension is responsible for the greater part of re- 
dundant; variance. In the subject-object relations there is only 17% redun- 
dant variance. The canonical component structure is given in Table 7. 



25 - 



Table 7. 


Canonical component structure. 


Micro-lesson 1: Evaluation 


Variabl 


e Designation 


Component 






No. 




1 


2 


3 


4 


Personality variables 










30 


Guilt Proneness 


-.40 


-.42 


.14 


-.18 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


.37 


-.41 


-.13 


-. 20 


37 


Matrices 


.18 


.15 


.02 


. 05 


28 


Autia 


-. 24 


-.24 


-.13 


-.12 


16 


Dependent Role 


-.08 


-. 22 


.54 


.20 


23 


Surgency 


. 00 


. 23 


.24 


-.12 


13 


Critical Role 


-.41 


-.05 


.49 


.15 


6 


Self- reliance 


.51 


.29 


.07 


. 31 


12 


Nondirective Role 


. 07 


. 20 


.24 


.20 


20 


General Intelligence 


. 24 


-. 00 


. 04 


-. 28 


35 


Series 


.49 


-.26 


.04 


-. 36 


4 


Self-assertion 


-19 


-. 06 


. 03 


. 30 


25 


Parmia 


.11 


. 33 


.39 


.19 


11 


Nurturant Role 


. 22 


. 26 


.46 


-. 13 


14 


Preadult-fixated Role 


. 00 


. 26 


.48 


. 23 


19 


Affectothymia 


-. 13 


. 35 


-. 08 


.41 


18 


Dominant Role 


-. 14 


. 03 


. 00 


-.26 


Subject- 


object relations 










1 


Ego- ego relation 


.64 


-.57 


.35 


.09 


2 


Ego- pupil relation 


.06 


.43 


.36 


.28 


3 


Ego-NPO relation 


-.43 


-.02 


.85 


.01 


4 


Pupil -ego relation 


.13 


.26 


.26 


.43 


5 


Pupil -pupil relation 


-.08 


-.12 


-.08 


.87 


6 


Pupil-NPO relation 


-.44 


-.40 


-.18 


.36 



Table 7 shows that variables Nos. 6, 35 and 4 correlate positively with the 
first predictor variable, while variables 30 and 23 show negative correla- 
tions. Only variable No. 1 correlates positively with the criterion vector, 
while variables Nos. 3 and 6 show substantial negative correlations. The 
personality variables correlating positively with the predictor vector have 
the following content: 

Self-reliance. This factor indicates the individual's belief in his ability to 
master different situations. This ability is probably based on flexibility, 
concentration, composure and openness. In the situations described con- 
cretely the individual is confronted with the following problems: (1) devia- 
ting from a plan made in advance, (2) changing a decision, (3) concentrating 
in disturbing surroundings, (4) acting calmly in an unexpected situation, 
(5) confiding everything to members of family and (6) having contact with 
pupils outside school. High points in this factor indicate flexibility and emo- 
tional security. This factor correlates negatively (r = -.31) with "Dominant 
Role" but positively (r = +29) with "High Self- sentiment", which means that 



- 26 - 

it describes the intensity of the emotional reactions and the individual's 
ability to control such reactions. 

Series measures the individual's inductive reasoning. This factor loads on 
a second order factor called "fluid general intelligence". 

Severity of Judgement . This variable indicates the teacher's tendency to 
choose different forms of punishment in order to correct the pupils' mis- 
takes or misbehaviour. It is assumed that the individual's attitude to punish- 
ment is related to a lack of assurance (see Bjerstedt & Sundgren, 1968, p. 
69). 

The personality variables that correlate negatively with the first pre- 
dictor vector can be described in the following way: 

Guilt Pr oneness implies that the individual shows heightened fear and 
anxiety. The factor is thought to be related to feelings of guilt and diminished 
self-confidence. This factor is characteristic of individuals who (1) doubt 
their own ability to deal with difficult situations, (2) express a strict atti- 
tude towards upbringing instead of giving way and being lenient, (3) choose 
few friend and (4) have high standards of group conformity to rules. This 
factor belongs to Cattell's primary factors, which load on the second stratum 
factor Q„, called "Adjustment- vs. -Anxiety". 

Critical Role. Teachers with high points on this scale are characterized 
by a generally critical attitude to the school system and the qualifications 
of their superiors. They are improvers and reformers (Sundgren, 1967, 
p. 47). 

These five personality variables just described can best predict the 
student teachers' evaluation of the "I-me" relation, i.e. actions, expecta- 
tions and attitudes towards their own person. This relation is described 
by statements concerning the student teachers' emotional state, voice, 
posture and factual knowledge. 

As Table 7 shows, components 2, 3 and 4 are also interesting. The 
personality variables that correlate positively with the second predictor 
vector are Nos, 25, "Parmia", and 19, "Affectothymia", while variable 
No. 41, "Severity of Judgement", correlates negatively. The ego-pupil 
relation correlates positively with the second criterion vector, while the 
ego- ego and pupil-NPO relations correlate negatively. The content of the 
individual variables have already, with the exception of "Affectothymia", 
been described. 

Affectothymia characterizes individuals who are cooperative, easy to 
associate with, helpful, interested in making contact, sympathetic, 
generous and adaptable. They form active groups easily and are 



27 - 



generous in their personal relationships, less frightened of criticism, have 
no difficulty in remembering people's names and appear to be less depen- 
dent on precision work and on being able to meet the requirements of the 
environment exactly. This factor is included in Cattell's extroversion syn- 
drome and expresses "social agreeableness". 

The relations in which ego is the subject correlate substantially with 
the third criterion factor, but it is above all the ego-NPO relation that is 
important. Five personality variables with r > . 30 correlate with the third 
criterion factor. In addition to the variables already mentioned, they are 
the following: 

Dependent Role. Teachers with high points on this scale try to escape 
from their uncertainty by relying on superiors (Sundgren, 1967, p. 47). 

Critical Role (see p. 26). 
Parmia (see p. 19). 

Nurturant Role Teachers with high points on this scale are characterized 
by a strong positive feeling for children and their needs. The love and 
appreciation they in return receive from the children is thought to provide 
their greatest satisfaction as teachers (Sundgren, 1967, p. 47). 

Preadult-fixated Role (see p, 22). 

The five predictor variables described above indicate that it should be 
possible to predict a positive evaluation of the ego-NPO relation, in addi- 
tion to what has already been said in connection with the first canonical 
vector, on the basis of the personality features that are typical for teachers 
who are inhibited very little by the risks and demands of the environment 
and who express a child- centred teacher role. 

The fourth canonical component shows that all the relations with, the 
pupil as subject correlate substantially with the criterion vector, while 
the pupil-pupil relation correlates most highly. The following three va- 
riables correlate positively with the predictor vector, while the fourth 
variable given shows a negative correlation: 

Self-reliance (see p. 25). 

Self-assertion (see p. 22). 

Affectothymia (see pp 26-27) 

Series (see p. 26). 

The fourth canonical dimension indicates that student teachers with high 
points in factors describing an extrovert personality express in their eva- 



- 28 - 

luation of the pupils tolerance of the pupils' behaviour. However, inductive 
reasoning correlates negatively with this dimension. 

For the prediction of the student teachers' evaluation during micro- 
lesson 1 , ten personality features have proved to correlate with r J> . 30. 
As has emerged from the discussion, there are four independent canonical 
dimensions that have proved to be important. 

In the first dimension the evaluation in the ego- ego relation is the 
criterion variable that can best be predicted by personality features in- 
cluded in an "Adjustment- vs. -Anxiety" syndrome that is defined by Cattell's 
primary factors C, L, O, Q, t CL. This factor deals with the intensity ("id 
pressure") and control of emotional reactions, i, e. anxiety contra emotio- 
nal adjustment (see Cattell et al. , 1970, p. 118). This is further emphasized by 
the student teachers' punishing attitude to misbehaviour by the pupils, which 
is thought to express uncertainty on the part of the individual. 

The second dimension concerns mainly the ego-pupil relation on the 
criterion side. Positive evaluations of this relation are made by student 
teachers who are extroverted, who have low points on "Correction of pupils" 
and who express assurance. 

The third dimension has relations with the ego as subject. The per- 
sonality features correlating highest with this dimension express a child- 
centred teacher role. 

Finally the relations with the pupil as subject correlate with the fourth 
criterion variable and the student teachers' positive evaluations can best 
be predicted by means of personality variables expressing extrovert per- 
sonality features. 

To sum up, the student teachers' evaluation of the ego-ego relation in 
the first lesson is related to personality features that determine the ability 
to control emotional reactions and to overcome uncertainty. But in addi- 
tion to this the student teachers' child -cent redness and extroversion are 
also important for the evaluation of primarily the ego-NPO and the pupil- 
pupil relation, which is shown by the third and fourth canonical dimensions. 

The analysis of the student teachers' evaluation in lesson 2 is presen- 
ted in Table 8, 

As can be seen from Table 8, there is no significant correlated cano- 
nical dimension in lesson 2 either. The six dimensions extract in lesson 2 
38% of the variance (compared to 39% in the first lesson) from the set of 
personality variables. However, in the subject-object relations there is 
only 18% (+1% compared to the firstlesson) predictable variance. The 
greatest part of the total redundant variance is associated with the first 
canonical component. But if all redundant variance (R. £ . 10) is to be ex- 



- 29 



plained, four components should be studied more closely. The canonical 
component structure is given in Table 9. 

Table 8. Canonical correlations between personality variables and subject- 
object relations :X test and redundancy index 



Roots 


R 
c 


R 2 
c 


Observed 
X 2 value 


df 


A 


Z>99 = 2.31 


1 


.54 


.29 


96.84 


102 


.311 


-.32 


2 


.51 


.26 


67.92 


80 


.441 




3 


.41 


.17 


43.08 


60 


.595 




4 


.41 


.17 


27.65 


42 


.717 




5 


.33 


.17 


12.66 


26 


.859 




6 


.19 


.04 


3.03 


12 


.964 




Wilks's 


A = .311 












Personality variables 




Subj 


set-object 


-relations 




V 
P 


dp 


R t 


V 
P 


R d P 


R t 


1 


.09 


.03 


.43 


,14 


.04 


.22 


2 


.05 


.01 


. 14 


.17 


,05 


.33 


3 


.06 


.01 


.14 


.23 


.04 


.22 


4 


.07 


.01 


.14 


.23 


.04 


.22 


5 


.05 


.01 


.14 


,12 


.01 


.06 


6 


.05 


.00 


.00 


.10 


.00 


.00 




.38 


.07 


1.00 


1.00 


.18 1 


.00 



For explanation of symbols, see Table 2 

Table 9. Canonical component structure. Micro-lesson 2: Evaluation 



Variable 


Designation 


Component 






No. 




1 


2 


3 


4 


Per sonal 


ity variables 










30 


Guilt Proneness 


. 34 


-. 11 


. 11 


-.06 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


.59 


-, 24 


-. 38 


-. 22 


37 


Matrices 


.05 


. 05 


-. 02 


.52 


28 


Autia 


.44 


-.16 


-.29 


.20 


16 


Dependent Role 


. 22 


. 16 


-. 27 


. 13 


23 


Surgency 


. 18 


. 32 


. 07 


.13 


13 


Critical Role 


.49 


. 03 


. 05 


-.01 


6 


Self-reliance 


-. 11 


. 08 


. 48 


-.49 


12 


Nondirective Role 


.36 


-. 23 


. 21 


. 29 


20 


General Intelligence 


-.42 


. 31 


. 11 


-. 13 


35 


Series 


-. 22 


-.40 


. 53 


-.13 


4 


Self-assertion 


, 27 


-.46 


-.09 


.36 


25 


Parmia 


. 12 


. 16 


. 01 


. 13 


11 


Nurturant Role 


. 12 


.08 


.07 


-. 03 


14 


Preadult-fixated Role 


. 13 


. 00 


.30 


-. 08 


19 


Affectothymia 


.26 


. 02 


. 07 


. 01 


18 


Dominant Role 


-. 20 


. 17 


-. 24 


-.45 



30 



Table 9. 


(cont. ) 










1 


Ego- ego relation 


-. 22 


-.24 


. 75 


-. 41 


2 


Ego- pupil relation 


-.19 


.67 


.19 


-.55 


3 


Ego-NPO relation 


.47 


. 62 


.29 


-.29 


4 


Pupil- ego relation 


. 30 


. 14 


.41 


. 68 


5 


Pupil -pupil relation 


. 61 


-.28 


. 55 


. 05 


6 


Pupil -NPO relation 


. 31 


-. 25 


-.45 


-.63 



Table. 9 shows that the following variables correlate positively with the first 
predictor vector: 41, 13, 28, 1 2 and 30. The variable 20 correlates nega- 
tively. Variables 3 to 5 correlate positively with the first criterion vector, 
but the pupil- pupil relation correlates most highly. Three new personality 
variables have been added for the student teachers' evaluation in the second 
micro-lesson in addition to: 

Severity of Judgement (see p. 26) 

Critical Role (see p. 26) 

Autia characterizes individuals with "an intense subjectivity and inner men- 
tal life". They need freedom and show a certain carelessness and irrespon- 
sibility in practical matters, but at the same time they are also characterized 
by higher internal tension caused by anxiety than individuals with low scores 
on this factor. Persons with high scores tend to feel that they are unaccepted 
in groups, but without bothering about it. This factor loads together with 
Cattell's primary factors I and M on a second stratum factor Qttt called 
"Pathemia - vs. - Cortertia". This factor describes a higher order factor 
with the more popular labelled poles "Sensitivity, Emotionalism - vs. - 
Though Poise" (see Cattell et al. , 1970, p. 17). 

Guilt Pr oneness (see p. 26) 

Nondirective Role is a scale describing teachers who display a need to 
reduce the dependency of the children on the personality of the teacher for 
the purpose of in the long run developing autonomically functioning indivi- 
duals (see Sundgren, 1967, p. 47), 

General Intelligence measures the "crystallized" rather than "fluid in- 
telligence" of the individual. By "Crystallized intelligence" is meant the 
other of the two second order factors established by Cattell. Tests measuring 
language ability, arithmetical skills and "topological reasoning" or logical 
thinking load on this factor. 

Thus, in the second lesson student teachers characterized by sensitivity, 
a lenient attitude to child- upbringing and child -eentredness appear largely 



31 - 



to evaluate the pupil-pupil relation positively. At the same time these 
student teachers have low points on the scale measuring correction of 
pupils and in the factor "Crystallized Intelligence". 

"Surgency" and "General Intelligence" correlate positively with the 
second predictor factor. On the other hand, "Series", i.e. inductive 
reasoning and "Self-assertion" correlate negatively. These predict maximally 
the student teachers' evaluation of both the ego -pupil and the ego-NPO rela- 
tions. 

"Self-reliance", "Series" and "Preadu It -fixated Role" correlate posi- 
tively with the third predictor dimension, while the student teachers' atti- 
tude towards punishment correlates negatively. The student teachers' eva- 
luation of the ego-ego relation can be predicted best, but the relations 4-6 
display substantial correlations with the third criterion vector. 

"Matrices" and "Self-assertion" correlate positively with the fourth 
predictor vector. 

Matrices . This factor is considered to measure deductive reasoning. This 
test loads on Cattell's "Fluid General Intelligence". The test is intended to 
measure the "g" factor (General Ability Factor), 

"Self-reliance" and "Dominant Role" correlate negatively with the 
fourth predictor vector. 

Dominant Role is a scale describing teachers who display a need to have 
their own superiority and their own ego- value confirmed. The pupils' sub- 
ordinate position in classroom situation gives satisfaction to teachers with 
high points here (see Sundgren, 1967, p. 47). 

What can be predicted maximally is the student teachers' evaluation of 
the pupil-ego and pupil-NPO relation. But relations 1 and 2 also show sub- 
stantial relations with the fourth criterion vector. 

In the second lesson, the student teachers' evaluation appears primarily 
to concern the pupil -pupil relation. The evaluation of this relation seems 
to be able to be predicted maximally by means of personality features such 
as sensitivity, a lenient attitude to child -upbringing and child-centredness, 
together with the student teachers' tendency to recommend measures for 
disciplinary problems and general intelligence. 

But the first canonical dimension does not appear to suffice as an ex- 
planation of all the essential redundant variance, A further three canonical 
dimensions are required for this purpose. The second dimension suggests 
that the student teachers' extroversion and general intelligence are im- 
portant for the evaluation of the ego-pupil and ego-NPO relations. The third 



- 32 - 

dimension concerns the student teachers' ability to control emotional 
reactions and attitudes of idealization of childhood, together with the abi- 
lity in inductive reasoning. This appears to be important for the evaluation 
of ego- ego relation. 

The fourth dimension concerns the student teachers' extrovert persona- 
lity features, ability in deductive reasoning, ability to control emotional 
reactions and need to dominate in classroom situations. 

To sum up, the student teachers' evaluation in the second lesson can 
be predicted maximally in the pupil-pupil relation. The personality fea- 
tures that appear to be most important for the prediction are related partly 
to the "Cortertia"- syndrome, e. g. sensitivity, partly to the "Anxiety"- 
syndrome, e.g. emotionality. A negative relation on the other hand de- 
monstrates the student teachers' ability in crystallization. 



3. 5 Multiple partial- correlation analysis 

We have used the canonical correlation analysis model to investigate which 
personality variables maximally predict a weighted average of the student 
teachers' assessments of the subject- object relations. By means of the 
multiple partial- correlation analysis model we can study how great a part 
of the variance-cov-ariance is related to separate subject -object relations. 
We now wish to study the following questions: 

1. What is the correlation between the personality variables and e.g. the 
ego -ego relation, after the variance that is related to the other five 
summation variables (as measured by linear functions) has been re- 
moved ? 

2. How much unexplained variance- covariance remains, i.e. what is the 
size of the residuals? 

The part of the variance that can be predicted for the separate summation 
variables is stated by means of squared multiple partial -correlations 
(R „). Since the correlations between the residuals (unexplained parte of 
the variance) have been calculated in PARTL. (see Cooley & Lohnes, 1971, 
pp. 201-220), it is also possible to study how great a part of the variance 
in the student teachers' perception and evaluation respectively in the indi- 
vidual micro-lessons' remains as unexplained variance. Table 10 presents 
the results of the multiple partial- correlation analysis for the student 
teachers' perception in micro-lesson 1. 



33 - 



Table! 0, Multiple partial-correlation analysis. Micro-lesson 1 : 
Perception 



Variable Designation 






R 


R p 


F-ratio 


F . 99 


No. 






P 




(16,79)=2.30 


1 Ego- ego 






,48 


.23 


1.46 




2 Ego- pupil 






.46 


.21 


1.31 




3 Ego-NPO 






. 50 


.25 


1.68 




4 Pupil- ego 






. 62 


.38 


3.05 


A'. * 


5 Pupil -pupil 






. 50 


.25 


1.64 




6 Pupil -NPO 






".42 


.18 


1.08 




Correlations between residual 


s 










1 2 


3 


4 


5 


6 






1 .53 


.42 


„ J ^ 


.20 


.26 






2 


.49 


.47 


.42 


.46 






3 




.34 


.28 


.51 






4 






.36 


.28 






5 








.54 






6 















Table 10 shows that in the first lesson 38% of the variance in the pupil-ego 
relation can be predicted from the personality variables. This result agrees 
well with the canonical correlation analysis, which showed that this rela- 
tion correlates most highly (r = .95} with the first criterion vector. In the 
other subject- object relations between 20 - 25% of the variance can be pre- 
dicted from the personality variables. The prediction is worst for the 
pupil-NPO relation, which also shows a correlation with the criterion 
vector that does not satisfy r > . 30 in the canonical correlation analysis. 
The correlation matrix for the residuals suggests, however, that there is 
some variance left, which cannot be explained by means of the personality 
variables on which this calculation is based. Apart from two correlations 
all are significantly separated from zero. 

The result of the multiple partial -correlation analysis for the student 
teachers' perception during micro-lesson 2 is given in Table 11. 

Table 11 shows that 37% and 36% respectively of the variance that is 
associated with the ego -NPO and the ego -ego relations can be predicted 
from the personality traits. In the pupil- ego relation 29% of the variance 
and in the ego -pupil relation 20% of the variance can be predicted on the 
basis of the personality features. On the other hand, it seems as if only a 
very small amount of variance can be predicted for the pupil- pupil and 
pupil-NPO relations in the second lesson. The correlation between the 
residuals shows that there are significant correlations that are on the 
whole larger than in lesson 1 . If this result is compared to what has 




- 34 - 

Table 1 1. Multiple partial -cor relation analysis. Micro-lesson 2: 
Perception 



Variable 

No. 


Designation 




R 


R 2 
*■ p 


F- ratio 


F 

.99 

(16,79)=2.30 


1 


Ego- ego 




.60 


.36 


2. 82 


** 


2 


Ego- pupil 




.44 


.20 


1. 20 




3 


Ego-NPO 




.61 


.37 


2. 88 


** 


4 


Pupil -ego 




.54 


.29 


2. 00 




5 


Pupil -pupil 




.38 


.14 


. 82 




6 


Pupil -NPO 




.42 


.18 


1. 08 




Correlati 


ons between 


re sidual 


s 










1 2 


3 


4 


5 


6 




1 


.63 


.60 


.37 


.46 


.34 




2 




.48 


.48 


.47 


.44 




3 






.54 


.56 


.41 




4 








.53 


.23 




5 










.46 




6 















emerged from the canonical correlation analysis, the ego-NPO and the 
ego-ego relations prove to correlate considerably higher (r =.82, r = , 57) 
wi'th the first criterion vector than the others do. This can be interpreted 
as meaning that all essential information is to be found in the first canoni- 
cal component, since the second one does not contribute any information in 
addition to what has already emerged in lesson 1. 

To sum up, the prediction of the student teachers' perception during 
the first lesson mainly concerns which actions, expectations and attitudes 
the pupils direct at the student teachers. High points on the variables 
"Social- communicative qualities", "Parmia" and "High Ergic Tension" 
together with low values on the test "Classifications", i. e. ability in de- 
ductive reasoning, leads to a positive perception. 

The prediction of the student teachers' perception during the second 
lesson mainly concerns how the student teachers act in relation to non- 
personal objects in their environment and the way in which they fit or do 
not fit in with the student teachers' plans, plus the actions, expectations 
and attitudes the student teachers have in regard to themselves. 

High points on the variables "Ego Weakness", "Surgency" and "Pre- 
adult-fixated Role" together with low values on "High Ergic Tension" and 
"Self-assertion" or the degree of extroversion are related to a positive 
perception in the second lesson. The perception has changed, regarding 
which relation(s) is concerned and it has also become more differentiated. 
At the same time this means that several and partly different personality 



35 



features are required to predict the student teachers' perception. 

The multiple partial- correlation analysis of the student teachers' 
evaluation during micro-lesson 1 is presented in Table 12. 

Table 12. Multiple partial-correlation analysis. Micro-lesson 1: 
Evaluation 



Variable Designation 
No. 



R 



R< 



F- ratio 



.99 
(17,78) = 2. 24 



1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 



1 
2 

3 
4 

5 
6 



Ego- ego 




.54 


.29 


1. 85 


Ego- pupil 




.35 


.12 


. 62 


Ego-NPO 




.45 


.20 


1. 16 


Pupil- ego 




.33 


.11 


. 55 


Pupil-pupil 




.36 


.13 


.68 


Pupil -NPO 




.42 


.18 


1. 00 


ns between 


residual 


s 






1 2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


.30 


.26 


-. 20 


.01 


. 18 




.51 


-. 12 


.09 


. 35 






.07 


.02 
.05 


-. 05 

-. 05 

. 13 



As can be seen from Table 12, in the first lesson 29% of the predictable 
variance in the student teachers' evaluation is associated with the ego-ego 
relation. A comparison with the canonical correlation analysis shows that 
this is the relation which correlates most highly (r = . 64) with the crite- 
rion vector. In the ego-NPO and pupil-NPO relations 20% and 18% respec- 
tively of the variance can be predicted from the personality variables, but 
both the relations correlate negatively with the criterion vector. The result 
can be interpeted as meaning that all essential information exists in the 
first canonical dimension and that the ego-ego relation is the one that can 
maximally be predicted. The correlation matrix shows moreover that not 
much variance-covariance remains. Only three of the 15 correlations are 
significantly separated from zero. 

The multiple partial- correlation analysis of the student teachers' eva- 
luation during lesson 2 is given in Table 13. 

Table 13 shows how the variance in the student teachers' evaluation in 
lesson 2 is spread relatively evenly over all the subject-object relations. 
The two variable domains for which 20% of the variance can be predicted 
are the student teachers' evaluation of the ego-NPO and the pupil-pupil re- 
lations. A comparison with the canonical correlation analysis shows that 
it is these two relations that correlate most highly (r = . 61, r = .47) with 
the criterion vector. But the pupil -ego and pupil-NPO relations also display 



36 - 



Table 13, Multiple partial- correlation analysis. Micro -lesson 2: 

Evaluation 



Variable 

No. 


Designation 




fi. 
P 


R 2 
p 


J;"- ratio 


F 
.99 

(17,78) = 


2. 24 


1 


Ego- ego 




.41 


.17 


.91 






2 


Ego- pupil 




.44 


.19 


1. 08 






3 


Ego-NPO 




.45 


.20 


1. 15 






4 


Pupil- ego 




.41 


,16 


. 88 






5 


Pupil -pupil 




. 44 


.20 


1. 12 






6 


Pupil-NPO 




.41 


.17 


. 94 






Correlati 


ons between residual 


3 












1 2 


3 


4 


5 


6 






1 


.21 


.32 


. 03 


.11 


.06 






2 




.35 


~. 05 


-.10 


. 20 






3 






. 08 


.03 


. 09 






4 








.31 


-, 31 






5 










-.21 






6 














1 



substantial correlations (r > . 30) with the first criterion vector. The corre- 
lation matrix shows that there is no variance worth mentioning left. A large 
part of the predictable variance is associated with the first canonical com- 
ponent. 

To sum up, the prediction of the student teachers' evaluation during the 
first lesson mainly concerns the actions, expectations and attitudes that are 
directed at one's own person. High points on the variables "Self-reliance", 
"Series", i.e. inductive reasoning, and "Severity of Judgement" together 
with low scores on "Guilt Proneness" and "Critical Role" are related to a 
positive evaluation. 

The prediction of the evaluation in lesson 2 mainly concerns the pupils' 
actions, expectations and attitudes towards themselves and other pupils, 
together with the student teachers' evaluation of how non-personal objects 
have or have not fitted in with their plans. High points on the variables 
"Critical Role", "Autia", "Nondirective Role" and "Guilt Proneness", to- 
gether with low scores in the factor "General Intelligence", i.e. the ability 
to crystallize, and "Matrices", i, e. deductive reasoning, are related to a 
positive evaluation. 



- 37 - 

4. SUMMARY 

The analyses in this report were carried out for the purpose of studying how 
important different personality features are for the individual's perception 
and evaluation of his own video- recorded teaching behaviours on different 
occasions. 

Taking a structuralistic view of the individual's "self" as a starting 
point, a study was made of whether and to what extent 41 different personal- 
ity variables could be used for prediction of the perception and evaluation of 
six different subject- object relations on two different teaching occasions. 

Using multivariate data analyses, both prediction problems and the 
meaning of the relations between the different groups of variables have been 
studied. Multivariate and factorial discriminant analyses were used to study 
to what extent the centroids referring to the experimental factors differ 
significantly from each other. As expected, no difference of any importance 
for this analysis has been found. By calculating a sequence of multiple 
linear regression equations in stepwise manner, an attempt was then made 
to determine the personality variable s that lead to the greatest reduction of 
the error variance. (For detailed information on this analysis, see Skog- 
Ostlin, 1975. ) For the student teachers' perception, sixteen personality 
variables satisfied the criteria of the analysis, while for the evaluation there 
proved to be seventeen such variables. On the basis of these variables, ca- 
nonical correlation analyses were made in order to find the smallest number 
of personality variables that must be controlled or extracted for an elimina- 
tion of all essential linear relations between the personality variables and 
the six subject-object relations. Finally multiple partial -cor relation ana- 
lyses were carried out for the purpose of studying how great a part of the 
variance- covariance is related to the separate subject- object relations. 

The main result of the analyses is presented in Figure 1. The fore- 
ground in Figure 1 represents the measuring instrument's six different 
subject- object relations for micro-lesson 1. The disconnected figure in the 
background symbolizes the measuring instrument's six subject- object rela- 
tions for micro-lesson 2. The ego-NPO relation is projected twice in order 
to indicate the prediction of both perception and evaluation for this relation. 
The small letters in bold point state the assessment, the index Figure 1 re- 
presenting the student teachers' perception and 2 their evaluation. 

Figure 1 shows how the student teachers' perception can in lesson 1 
best be predicted for the pupil-ego relation, while on the same occasion 
their evaluation can best be predicted for the ego-ego relation. 

For lesson 2, Figure 1 shows that the student teachers' perception can 



ML 2 



ML 1 



Ego 



Pupil- 




Ego 



Pupil 



NPO 



00 



Perception 



ML 1 : Micro-lesson 1 
ML 2: Micro -lesson 2 

Figure 1. Prediction of student teachers' perception and evaluation of 
subject- object relations in two different micro-lessons 



- 39 



best be predictee for both the ego- ego and the ego-NPO relations. The 
student teachers' evaluation in lesson 2 can on the other hand best be pre- 
dicted for both the pupil-pupil and the ego-NPO relations. 

Very briefly the content can be described in the following way: 



1. 



2. 



In micro- lesson 1 the weighted average of four personality variables is 
the best predictor for the student teachers' perception of the pupil- ego 
relation. The contents of this relation between the predictor and the 
criterion variable are the following: 

Student teachers with high points in Student teachers with high points in 
the factor "Socially- communicative the perception of the pupil-ego re- 



qualities" consider that .they can 
master different concretely des- 
cribed situations requiring self- 
esteem, authority and linguistic 
sensitivity. They are also charac- 



lation state that during the lesson 
the pupils follow instructions , do 
not contradict, ask questions con- 
cerning the subject under discussion 
and that the pupils during the lesson 



terized by "Parmia", which means seldom give answers to questions 



other than those expected by the 
student teacher. 



that they are uninhibited socially 
as a result of an absence of shy- 
ness. At the same time they also 
display heightened emotional ten- 
sion, which may be an expression 
of temporary emotional reactions 
to a particular situation. The 
student teachers' ability in de- 
ductive reasoning appears to be of 
no importance in this context, 
however. In summing up, it can 
be said that the variables describe 
student teachers with extrovert 
personality features. 

In micro-lesson 2 the average of five personality variables form the 
best predictor of the student teachers' perception of both the ego-NPO 
and the ego- ego relations. This relation between the predictor and the 
criteria variables are the following; 



Student teachers with high points 
on the scale "Ego Weakness" are 
easily influenced. But they are al- 
so characterized by "Surgency", 



Student teachers with high points 
in the perception of the ego-NPO 
relation state that their own 
teaching is varied for the pupils, 



- 40 - 



which means that they are cheer- that the TV studio has little effect 
ful. They are talkative, expressive on their way of teaching, that their 



and bubbling over with energy and 
activity. At the same time they 
are "Preadult- fixated", i.e. they 
identify more easily with children 
than with adults. Heightened emo- 
tional tension as an expression of 
emotional reactions to temporary 
situations and "Self-assertion", 
i. e. the student teachers' posi- 
tion when asserting their own opi- 
nions and acting in accordance 
with their own norms, correlates 
negatively with this predictor com- 
ponent. In summing up, the va- 
riables can be said to describe 
student teachers with extrovert 
personality features that are 
modified by a factor related to 
"Social plasticity" and a scale ex- 
pressing a certain degree of child- 
centredness. 



rough and detailed planning is good, 
that teaching aids are often used, 
that the subject is presented clearly, 
that the teaching abounds in facts, 
that the linking up with the pupils' 
previous knowledge was good and 
that there are no unnecessary de- 
viations from the subject. Student 
teachers with high points in the 
perception of the ego-ego relation 
state that they are relaxed, behave 
with assurance, are patient with 
the pupils and have a sense of hu- 
mour, speak in a loud, .clear and 
varied voice, rarely use gestures 
or fiddle with anything (e. g. 
twisting a ring), have good factual 
knowledge. They do not make use 
of stereotyped expressions, use 
complete sentences, are linguisti- 
cally correct, speak without dia- 
lectal accent, never use difficult 
words without explaining them 
(e.g. technical terms), always 
know how they intend to continue 
or what they are going to say, 
write legibly and never put rheto- 
rical questions. 

However, it should in conclusion also be mentioned that the canonical 
correlation analyses have shown that in both lessons there are two cano- 
nical dimensions dealing with the teacher's preoccupation with rules and 
regulations for the purpose of gaining assurance in their personal rela- 
tionships with the pupils. 

3. In micro-lesson 1 the sum of five personality variables gives the best 
prediction of the student teachers' evaluation of the ego- ego relation. 
The content of this relation between the predictor and the criterion 
variables are as follows: 



41 - 



Student teachers with high scores Student teachers with high scores 
in the factor "Self-reliance" con- in the evaluation of the ego-ego 
sider that they are capable of mas- relation state the following: they 



tering different concretely dis- 
cribed situations requiring flexi- 
bility, concentration and compo- 
sure and openness. They show a 
good ability in inductive reasoning 
but they have a tendency to re- 
commend severe punishments in 
order to deal with the pupils' 
faults and misbehaviour. At the 
same time they display a heigh- 
tened fear and anxiety together 
with a generally critical attitude 
towards the school system and the 
qualifications of their superiors. 



are influenced positively by the 
tension during the lesson. Assured 
behaviour, patience with the pupils 
and a sense of humour are all im- 
portant. They also consider vocal 
variation, clarity of speech, vocal 
pitch and posture during the lesson 
to be important. They feel it is 
important to use gestures and at 
the same time judge that the stu- 
dent teachers' own fiddling with 
objects during the lesson does not 
distress the pupils. Having factual 
knowledge is considered to be im- 



To sum up, the variables describe portant and the use of stereotyped 



the intensity of the emotional re- 
actions and student teachers' abi 
lity to control these reactions. 
High scores indicate emotional 
assurance. 



expressions to be disturbing. The 
use of incomplete sentences is 
judged as being undistressing. The 
same applies to the use of linguis- 
tically incorrect expressions and 
dialectal accent. While the use of 
difficult words (without explanation) 
is judged as being meaningless from 
the pupils' point of view. The stu- 
dent teachers themselves do not 
feel having mental blocks to be 
distressing. The legibility of their 
handwriting is considered impor- 
tant and putting rhetorical questions 
is felt to be distressing. 

In micro- lesson 2 the sum of six personality variables gives the best 
prediction of the student teachers' evaluation of both the pupil- pupil 
and ego-NPO relations. The content of this relation between the predic- 
tor and the criteria variables are as follows: 



- 42 



Student teachers with high scores Student teachers with high scores 

show a generally critical attitude in the evaluation of the pupil -pupil 

to the school system and the qua- relation state as follows: They do 

lifications of their superiors. They not find it distressing when the 

have among other things a need for pupils speak at the same time, 

freedom and display a certain de- speak to each others about things 

gree of carelessness and irre- outside the subject and play to- 

sponsibility in practical matters. gether during the lesson. They con- 

At the same time they have a higher sider it important that the pupils 



discuss with each other the subject 
of the lesson. Student teachers 
with high scores in the evaluation 
of the ego-NPO relation state as 
follows: that it is important that 
the lesson should be varied for the 
pupils. The influence of the TV 
studio gives them assurance. It is 
important to plan the lesson both 
roughly and in detail. It is also 
important to use the blackboard 
and highly suitable teaching' aids. 
The lay-out of what is written on 
the blackboard and the form in which 
the subject is presented are both 
considered important. The commu- 
nication of hard facts in the 
teaching is considered important, 
as is the ability to link up with the 
pupils' previous knowledge, while 
unnecessary digressions from the 
subject are thought to be unimpor- 
tant. 

In the same way as in the analysis of the student teachers' perception, the 
evaluation also produces canonical dimensions which give information in 
addition to what can be explained by the first canonical component. In the 
first lesson these express extrovert personality traits and a certain child- 
centredness, while in the second lesson it is extroversion and the student 
teachers' ability to crystallize together with a need to dominate classroom 
situations that assert themselves. 



ergic tension caused by anxiety 
than student teachers with low 
scores in this factor, However, 
they also show a need to reduce 
the pupils' dependence in order 
that they may gradually develop 
into independent individuals. The 
factor "Guilt Proneness" indicates 
that student teachers with high 
scores in this factor doubt their 
own ability to master difficult si- 
tuations. Deductive reasoning are 
however negatively correlated 
with this dimension. To sum up, 
the variables describe student 
teachers who show a certain 
amount of uncertainty and are 
characterized by emotionality 
and sensitivity traits. 



- 43 



Finally the result of this study could be made the basis of the following 
hypotheses: 

1. In lesson 1 the student teachers' perception is concentrated mainly on 
the "they-me" relation, i. e. perceptions concerning the pupils actions 
against the "teacher". 

2. In lesson 1 the student teachers' evaluation is primarily concentrated 
on the "I-me" relation, i, e. how I as "teacher" have succeeded in this 
first confrontation. 

3. In lesson 2 the student teachers' perception is concentrated on the 
"I-they" relation, i, e, the execution of the plan of the lesson and the 
use of various teaching aids. But the perception also concerns the 
"I-me" relation, i. e. aspects involving the student teacher's own 
person, which could best be expressed as a "test of hypotheses about 
one's own behaviour". 

4. In lesson 2 the evaluation is primarily concentrated on the "They-them" 
and "I-it" relations. Thus, it is assumed that during the second lesson 
the student teachers evaluate how distressing or undistressing and how 
important or unimportant the pupils' behaviour towards each other is. 
At the same time the evaluation concerns how varied the teaching was 
or how suitable the teaching aids used were. 

The analyses described here and the results presented elsewhere do not 
unfortunately permit an empirical test of hypotheses 1-4. It is possible that 
a detailed study of the student teachers' oral comments could produce 
some empirical proof. Future empirical studies should be designed both 
to test the hypothesis stated above and to investigate the development of the 
student teachers' perception and evaluation. What happens, for example, 
to the student teachers' focussing of attention and what changes occur in 
the structure of their perception and evaluation in a third, fourth etc. 
lesson? 



- 44 



5. REFERENCES 



Bierschenk, B. Sjalvkonfrontation via intern television i lararutbildningen . 
/Self- confrontation via closed-circuit television in teacher training. / 
(Studia Psycholog. et Paedag. , 18.) Lund: Gleerup, 1972. 

Bjerstedt, A. & Sundgren, P. Interaction tendencies, personality, and 
teacher effectiveness. Scand. J. educ. Res. , 1968, 12, 51-90. 

Cattell, R. B. , Eber, H. W. & Tatsuoka, M. M. Handbook for the sixteen 
personality factor questionaire (16 PF). Champaign, 111. : Institute for 
personality and ability testing, 1970. 

Cooley, W. & Lohnes, P. R. Multivariate data analysis. New York: Wilev, 
1971. 

Darlington, R.B., Weinberg, S. & Walberg, H.J. Canonical variate ana- 
lysis and related techniques. _Re2^__ejdux : _JRes^, 1973, 43 (4), 433-454, 

Dixon, W. J. Biomedical computer programs, Berkeley: University of 
California Press, 1970. 

Pawlik, K. Dimension en des Verhaltens . Stuttgart: Huber, 1968. 

Skog-Ostlin, K. Nagra personlighetsvariablers betydelse vid lararkandida- 
ters perception och vardering av egen undervisning, /The significance 
of some personality variables for the student teachers' perception and 
evaluation of their own teaching. / Pedagogisk-psykologiska problem 
(MalmS, Sweden: School of Education), No. 276. 1975. /In Swedish./ 

Stewart, D. &: Love, W. A general canonical correlation index. Psychol. 
Bull. , 1968, 70 (3), 160-163, 

Sundgren, P. La rar roller och larar lamplighet. /Teacher personality and 
teacher efficiency./ (Pedagogisk orientering och debatt, Nr 18) Lund; 
Uniskol, 1967. /in Swedish. / 

Tatsuoka, M. M. Multivariate analysis . New York: Wiley, 1971. 

Tatsuoka, M. M. Multivariate analysis in educational research. In: 

Kerlinger, F.N. (Ed.) Review of research in education. Itasca, 111. : 
Peacock, 1973. Pp. 273-319. 



45 - 



APPENDICES 

1. Product -moment correlations of the 41 personality- 
variables designated in Box 1 1:1 

2. The discrimination ability of 41 personality variables 
with respect to the experimental factors: Summary 

of MANOVA & FACDIS statistics 1:2-1:4 

3. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality 

variables for the subject- object relations, based on R^ 2:1-2:6 

4. Product -moment correlations between the predictor 
variables designated in Box 3 and the subject- object 

relations 3:1-3:2 



Table 1. Product- moment correlations of the 41 personality variables designated in Box 1 



10 

1! 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 



23 

24 



36 
37 



.44 ,37 -.10 


.27 


.15 


. 15 - 


03 


. 12 


.15 


. 14 


. '. 2 


. 1.3 


-.15 


-.00 


-.02 


-. 09 


-.00 


-.18 


. 25 


.19 


.20 


-,02 


. 54 


-.23 


-.2! 


.16 


.28 


-. -SI 


.07 


-.04 


.51 


-.17 


.16 


-.05 


.03 


04 


.06 


-.03 


.16 


.02 .03 .01 


. 14 


.04 


., 02 - 


22 


.06 


.02 


-. 13 


.06 


-.09 


-.07 


-.03 


-. 29 


-.20 


.02 


.02 


.05 


-.15 


.03 


.40 


-.14 


-.03 


.24 


.12 


-.07 


-.05 


.04 


-.14 


.01 


-.09 


.06 


-.09 


-.17 


.01 


-.06 


-.04 


. 13 


.25 .08 


. 21 


. 11 


-.03 - 


21 


14 


.37 


.31 


.15 


.29 


-.09 


-.03 


.11 


-.13 


. -.4 


.01 


.25 


.21 


24 


.05 


.41 


-.30 


-.25 


.02 


.14 


-.19 


-.0! 


-.04 


.44 


-.35 


.02 


-. 01 


.08 


.03 


04 


.08 


-.06 


.00 


.08 


-.02 


-.13 - 


17 


.03 


. 14 


.31 


. 18 


.21 


-.32 


-. 13 


.02 


.34 


-.00 


-.26 


-.06 


. 32 


.23 


-.22 


39 


.05 


-. 11 


. 2! 


. 1 9 


-.17 


.01 


-.1! 


.10 


-.09 


.16 


. 11 


. 11 


-. 10 


. 12 


-.03 


-.09 




-. 05 


. 12 


.12 - 


24 


. 10 


.07 


.11 


-.10 


-.02 


.01 


. 10 


-.29 


.01 


09 


-.13 


-. 07 


-. 07 


-.27 


.12 


.01 


-.20 


-.06 


.as 


.06 


-.25 


.06 


.01 


.20 


-.44 


-.09 


.01 


-.03 


-.01 


-.05 


-.01 


-.36 






.09 


.22 - 


20 


.06 


.25 


. 11 


.08 


. 22 


-.23 


.01 


-.05 


.31 


. 14 


.07 


.23 


. 01 


.13 


,0'. 


. 14 


-.20 


-.10 


.07 


.10 


-.24 


.00 


-.16 


.29 


-.23 


.15 


. 15 


.04 


-.10 


.11 


.17 


.05 








.16 - 


03 


- 08 


.01 


.06 


-. 11 


-.02 


.00 


.09 


-.12 


-.07 


.10 


-.13 


.25 


.06 


.10 


-.05 


.24 


-.10 


.04 


.09 


.12 


-.16 


-.11 


-.04 


,07 


-.17 


-.14 


-.11 


.13 


-.21 


-.12 


.12 


.10 










OS 


. 17 


-.07 


-.20 


.00 


-.03 


.17 


.14 


-.04" 


. 11 


-.02 


.16 


-.04 


.01 


.14 


.10 


.16 


-.04 


.05 


.11. 


,08 


-.11 


-.25 


-.05 


,19 


-.02 


.11 


.06 


.11 


.09 


.13 


.08 


.17 












. 20 


-.22 


-.08 


.06 


-.22 


.32 


-.07 


. 13 


.40 


-.08 


. 13 


. IS 


.08 


.05 


-.23 


-.01 


.07 


.19 


.06 


.01 


.09 


-.06 


.01 


-.19 


25 


-.01 


-.10 


-.05 


.06 


-.05 


.03 


.13 














. 32 


09 


.51 


.24 


.24 


.37 


. 23 


.14 


.22 


.03 


.09 


-. 17 


. ?:-. 


.32 


-.10 


.05 


.15 


.01 


.13 


.01 


. 13 


.08 


.13 


. 04 


-.23 


.01 


-.17 


-.13 


-.17 


-.11 


-.01 
















.43 


.25 


. 70 


-.06 


.20 


. 50 


-.12 


.34 


-.01 


.18 


.10 


.16 


.18 


.18 


01 


.11 


.16 


.17 


.18 


-.07 


-.07 


.08 


.01 


-.10 


-.06 


-.09 


.03 


-.08 


.15 


.00 


















.28 


.59 


-.24 


.23 


. 37 


.35 


.16 


.00 


.12 


.16 


.16 


-.06 


.15 


.00 


-.19 


.21 


-.02 


.06 


.16 


.02 


.09 


-.08 


.01 


.13 


.13 


.03 


.11 


.25 


-. 28 




















.34 


-.00 


.28 


. 26 


.0] 


.16 


.14 


.05 


.05 


.08 


.09 


. 1 1 


. On 


.01 


.03 


.16 


.06 


.06 


.03 


-.03 


-.06 


-.10 


-.06 


-.03 


-.09 


-.10 


-.03 


-.14 






















-.10 


.26 


.55 


. 28 


.16 


,05 


. 06 


, 11 


.19 


.10 


,24 


.03 


.13 


.12 


-.02 


, 14 


-.13 


-.03 


.09 


-.07 


.06 


-.04 


.04 


.03 


.03 


,16 


-.13 
























.37 


.11 


. 65 


.04 


.10 


. 17 


-.22 


-.16 


.11 


-.14 


-.00 


.07 


.13 


.07 


. 1 1 


-.16 


. 11 


-.03 


.01 


-.19 


.01 


-.03 


-.01 


-.08 


-.05 


.16 


























.34 


. 13 


.06 


. 23 


.11 


-.09 


-.03 


.18 


-.01 


-.03 


-.22 


.01 


.06 


-.01 


-.07 


.07 


.04 


-. 19 


-.09 


. 12 


10 


.01 


.05 


.14 


.06 




























.03 


. 05 


.04 


.03 


.13 


.21 


-.04 


. 10 


.17 


.01 


.10 


-.07 


. 22 


.09 


-.02 


-.04 


.18 


-.09 


.01 


.07 


.12 


03 


.06 


-.07 






























-.01 


.07 


, 15 


-.13 


-. 25 


-.02 


-.14 


-.04 


.07 


.18 


.09 


-.05 


-.03 


.03 


-.08 


.10 


-. 22 


.09 


-.15 


-.02 


-.12 


-.18 


21 
































.01 


.03 


.01 


.03 


.03 


.07 


-.12 


-. 00 


.16 


. 23 


-.01 


-.06 


- . 07 


.08 


-.07 


-.28 


-. 10 


-. 18 


-.11 


-.24 


.05 


.01 


































.03 


-.01 


.10 


.11 


-.21 


-.06 


-.00 


. 10 


-.01 


.01 


.03 


-.16 


.04 


.09 


-.02 


.15 


.02 


.16 


.11 


-.12 


.12 




































.07 


.07 


.22 


.17 


-.21 


.25 


.04 


.03 


-.33 


-.17 


-.16 


.27 


-. 26 


. 13 


-.01 


. 14 


.02 


.09 


-.06 


.16 






















• 
















.25 


-.33 
-.08 


.37 
.38 

-. 19 


.06 
-.07 

. 10 
-.20 


.01 

03 

. 14 
.03 

,17 


.05 
.23 
.05 
.01 
.39 
. 14 


.15 
.08 

-.02 
. 17 
.05 
.03 

-.07 


-.12 
.05 
.02 

-. 35 
.43 
.26 
.29 

-.07 


-. 17 
-.15 
-.02 
-.18 
.02 
.02 
.16 
-.07 
-.05 


-.07 
-.02 
-.11 
-.08 
-.04 
.04 
-.05 
-.14 
.08 
.01 


-.03 
.04 
.07 
.34 
-.46 
-. 39 
-.21 
, 24 
-.42 
04 
-.12 


-.04 

-.06 

-.08 

-.29 

.42 

.21 

. 15 

.05 

.45 

. 10 

-.03 

-.37 


.10 

.07 
-.04 
-.03 

.03 
-.09 
-. 15 

.07 
-.08 
-.06 
-.12 

.09 

.02 


-.01 
-.12 
.04 
-.08 

01 
.!Ji 

.06 
-09 
-.09 

.05 

.05 
-.03 
-.03 

.30 


.04 
.14 

-.13 

.16 

-.04 

-.03 

-.04 

-.04 

-.21 

.02 

. 13 

.01 

-.14 

.43 

.39 


-. 01 

. 17 

. 08 

-. 09 

.04 

-. 04 

-. 12 

-. 10 

. 12 

-.05 

.12 

.02 

.06 

.24 

.19 

.23 


.05 

.06 

-.01 

-.02 

.01 

-.05 

-.08 

-.05 

-.10 

-.01 

.05 

.03 

-.03 

.73 

.74 

.72 

.54 


-.06 

-.04 

-.00 

-.OS 

.21 

. 10 

.13 

-.04 

. 17 

-.03 

.11 

-.15 

-.03 

.14 

. 33 

.31 

.17 

.39 


.04 
. 08 
-.02 
.10 
-. 10 
-. 08 
• 11 

.;•!) 

-.07 
-.12 

-.05 
.05 
.14 
-.05 
-.20 
-.16 
-.03 
-.17 
; .17 



> 

8 



Appendix 1 :2 

Table 2. The discrimination ability of 41 personality variables with 
respect to the experimental factors: Summary of MANOVA 
& FACDIS statistics 



.99 
(dfj, df 2 ) 



Hypothesis 1 
F- ratio 



.99 
(df r df 2 ) 



Hypothesis 2 
F- ratio 



(315, 1796?) 

(408, 17875) 

(630, 17768) 

(759, 17735) 



1. 14 
1. 12 
1.11* 
1. 30*** 



.55 
.41 
.65 
.52 



(42, 235) 
(48, 229) 
(60, 218) 
(66, 212) 



1.73** 

.92 
1.52** 

.90 



T) : Wilks's generalized eta 



Table 3. Multivariate significance test for analysis 1 
(F VIII + PO + TPS) 



Source 


F-racio 


F . 99 (14, 
= 2.43 


81) Wilks's 








lambda (A) 


Tutoring 


(H) 1.17 








83 




Self- confrontation (T) 1.39 






, 


81 




Interaction (H&T) 2. 94 




5|e * 


• 


66 




Discriminant structure 












Variable 


Designation 




H 


T 




H&T 


No. 














1 


Acceptance of oneself 




.01 


. 07 




-. 30 


2 


Acceptance of others 




. 08 


-. 24 




. 27 


7 


Suggestibility to Authority 


. 30 


-.47 




.48 


8 


Ego Weakness 




.24 


.07 




. 32 


9 


Practical Role 




-. 28 


. 21 




-.26 


10 


Status- striving Role 




.13 


.23 




. 05 


11 


Nurturant Role 




.52 


.26 




-.00 


12 


Nondirective Role 




.54 


. 15 




-.15 


13 


Critical Role 




-.07 


. 08 




-. 28 


14 


Preadult- fixated Role 




.69 


.43 




-.15 


15 


Orderly Role 




-.03 


-. 13 




.09 


16 


Dependent Role 




. 35 


-.40 




. 48 


17 


Exhibitionistic Role 




. 55 


. 32 




-. 02 


18 


Dominant Role 




-. 12 


-. 18 




-.27 


Centroids of the discriminant functions 








2 


-. 40 t 
.43 t 2 - 


40 










43 











Table 4. 



Appendix 1 :3 

Contrasts for the interaction between tutoring and self- confrontation 
plus univariate F- ratios 



Variable 


Designation 


Vi 


Vz 


Vi 


Vz 


F- ratio F q Q 


No. 












(1,92) = 


: 6. 78 


1 


Acceptance of oneself 


2. 28 


-2.28 


-2.28 


2. 28 


2.88 




2 


Acceptance of others 


- .90 


.90 


.90 


- .90 


2.07 




7 


Suggestibility to Authority 


-1. 23 


1.23 


1.23 


-1. 23 


7.22 


* * 


8 


Ego Weakness 


- .95 


.95 


- -95 


- .95 


3.35 




9 


Practical Role 


. 83 


- .83 


- .83 


. 83 


1.89 




10 


Status- striving Role 


- . 24 


.24 


.24 


- .24 


.14 




11 


Nurturant Role 


. 02 


- .02 


- .02 


. 02 


.00 




12 


Nondirective Role 


. 50 


- .50 


- .50 


.50 


.89 




13 


Critical Role 


1.12 


-1.12 


-1.12 


1. 12 


2.56 




14 


Preadult-fixated Role 


.49 


- .49 


- .49 


.49 


.79 




15 


Orderly Role 


- .26 


.26 


.26 


- .26 


.22 




16 


Dependent Role 


-1. 50 


1.50 


1.50 


-1. 50 


7.09 


* * 


17 


Exhibitionistic Role 


. 05 


- .05 


- .05 


.05 


.01 




18 


Dominant Role 


1. 12 


-1.12 


-1.12 


1. 12 


2.65 





Table 5. Multivariate significance test for analysis 3 
(F VEI + PO + TPS + 3A + HD + SJ) 



Source 


F- ratio 


F Q 


J20, 75) 


Wilks's 






. V9 
= 2.16 


lambda (A.) 


Tutoring (H) 1. 10 






.77 




Self- confrontation (T) 1.37 






.73 




Interactio 


n (H&T) 2.30 






.62 




Discriminant structure 










Variable 


Designation 




H 


T 


H&T 


No. 












1 


Acceptance of oneself 




.01 


-. 04 


-.28 


2 


Acceptance of others 




. 07 


.19 


.25 


7 


Suggestibility to Authority 


.27 


.39 


.45 


8 


Ego Weakness 




.21 


-. 08 


. 30 


9 


A Practical Role 




-.25 


-. 17 


-. 24 


10 


B Status- striving Role 




.10 


-.21 


.06 


11 


C Nurturant Role 




.45 


-. 22 


.00 


12 


D Nondirective Role 




.47 


-. 11 


-.13 


13 


E Critical Role 




-.06 


-. 05 


-.27 


14 


F Preadult-fixated Role 




.59 


-.36 


-.13 


15 


G Orderly Role 




-.02 


. 11 


. 08 


16 


H Dependent Role 




.31 


. 33 


.44 


17 


I Exhibitionistic Role 




.47 


-. 27 


-.01 


18 


J Dominant Role 




-. 10 


. 18 


-.26 


35 


Series 




-.02 


. 11 


.02 


36 


Classifications 




-.11 


.21 


.04 


37 


Matrices 




.21 


.16 


.12 


38 


Conditions 




. 35 


.02 


. 10 


40 


Field articulation 




.22 


-.14 


.34 


41 


Severity of Judgement 




.19 


.40 


-.12 


Centroids 


i of the discriminant funct 


ions 








h 1 
h 2 


-.47 t 
.47 4 


51 








51 









Appendix 1 :4 



Table 6. Contrasts for the interaction between tutoring and self -confrontation 
plus univariate F- ratios 



Variable 


Designation 


Vi 


Vz 


Vi 


Vz 


F- ratio F qq 


No. 












(1,92) =6.78 


1 


Acceptance of oneself 


2. 28 


-2.28 


-2.28 


2. 28 


2.88 


2 


Acceptance of others 


- .90 


.90 


.90 


- .90 


2.07 


7 


Suggestibility to Authority- 


-1. 23 


1.23 


1.23 


-1. 23 


7.22 ** 


8 


Ego Weakness 


- .95 


.95 


.95 


- .95 


3.35 


9 


A Practical Role 


. 83 


- .83 


- .83 


. 83 


1.89 


10 


B Status -striving Role 


- . 24 


.24 


.24 


- .24 


.14 


11 


C Nurturant Role 


. 02 


- .02 


.02 


.02 


,00 


12 


D Nondirective Role 


. 50 


- .50 


- .50 


. 50 


.89 


13 


E Critical Role 


1. 12 


-1.12 


1.12 


1. 12 


2.56 


14 


F Preadult-fixated Role 


.49 


- .49 


- .49 


.49 


.79 


15 


G Orderly Role 


- .26 


.26 


.26 


- .26 


.22 


16 


H Dependent Role 


-1. 50 


1.50 


1.50 


-1. 50 


7.09 ** i 


17 


I Exhibitionistic Role 


.05 


- .05 


- .05 


. 05 


.01 i 


18 


J Dominant Role 


1. 12 


-1.12 


-1.12 


1.12 


2.65 


35 


Series 


- .02 


.02 


.02 


.02 


.01 | 


36 


Classifications 


- .05 


.05 


.05 


- . 05 


.06 


37 


Matrices 


- .09 


.09 


.09 


- .09 


.40 


38 


Conditions 


- .07 


.07 


.07 


- . 07 


.29 


40 


Field articulation 


-1.39 


1.39 


1.39 


-1.39 


4.37 


41 


Severity of Judgement 


.75 


- .75 


- .75 


.75 


.79 



Appendix 2;1 



? able l ' ?- ank order of the prediction values of the personality variables 
for the ego dimension, based on R 2 : Perception 



Test ML 1 

points (p) 



1 





2 





3 


C 


4 


8 


5 


16 


6 


3 


7 


1 


8 


1 


9 


■1 


10 


13 


11 


6 


12 





13 


5 


14 


9 


15 





16 





17 


5 


18 





19 


6 


20 





21 





22 


5 


23 


9 


24 





25 


8 


26 


7 


27 


4 


28 


10 


29 


8 


30 


3 


31 


2 


32 





33 





34 


20 


35 





36 


6 


37 





38 


5 


39 





40 


4 


41 






1 

2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
3 
1 

L 

1 



1 
1 

1 
1 
1 

1 
I 
1 
1 









8 

8 

3 

1 

I 

1 
4.3 

6 

5 
9 


5 

6 


5 
9 

8 
7 
4 
10 
8 
3 
2 


10 

6 


2.5 

4 




ML 2 

points (p) f 




3 
7 

20 

15 




13 
4 
1 
4 
8 

8 










5 



9 





2 
10 

3 



5 

6 

6 

8 
11 
10 

1 

5 





I 
1 
3 
2 



2 
1 
1 

1 

2 



1 
2 
1 

I 
1 
1 
1 

I 
1 
1 
I 



3 

7 

6.6 

7.5 







6.5 

4 

1 

4 

4 



8 

















5 



9 





2 

5 

3 





6 
8 

5.5 
10 
1 
5 




165 




3 
7 
28 
31 
3 
1 
1 
14 
17 
7 
4 
13 
9 
8 

5 

6 


5 
9 
5 
8 
16 
4 
10 
10 
13 
5 

5 
26 
6 
14 
11 
15 
I 
9 




Sf 2p 



1 

1 

4 

4 

1 

I 

1 

3 

4 
? 

1 
3 
1 

I 



I 
I 
1 
1 
2 
I 
I 
2 
3 
2 

] 
3 
1 
2 
2 
3 
1 
2 



30 



5.5 



165 



30 



5.5 



330 60 




3 

7 

7 

7. 7 
3 
1 
1 

4. 6 
4. 2 
3.5 
4 

4.3 
9 
8 

5 

6 


5 
9 
5 
8 
8 
4 
10 
5 

4. 3 
2. 5 


5 

8. 6 
6 
7 

5. 5 
5 

1 

4. 5 
_0 

5. 5 



Appendix 2:2 



Table 2. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality variables for 
the pupil dimension, based on r2; Perception 






Test 


ML 1 
points (p) 


f 


P 


ML 2 
points (p) 


f 


P 




2p 


2f 


Sp 


1 























0. 


2 


2 


1 


2 











2 


1 


2. 


3 


2 


1 


2 


16 


2 


8 




18 


3 


6. 


4 


19 


3 


6.3 


15 


2 


7. 


5 


34 


5 


6. 8 


5 


18 


2 


9 


2 


2 


1 




20 


4 


5. 


6 









3 


1 


3 




3 


1 


3. 


7 









6 


1 


6 




6 


1 


6. 


8 


16 


2 


8 


5 


1 


5 




21 


3 


7. 


9 


8 


2 


4 











8 


2 


4.0 


10 


4 


1 


4 


17 


2 


8. 


5 


21 


3 


7. 


11 


























12 


16 


2 


8 











16 


2 


8. 


13 









10 


2 


5 




10 


2 


5.0 


14 


10 


1 


10 











10 


1 


10. 


15 









14 


3 


4. 


6 


14 


3 


4.6 


16 



























17 



























18 



























19 









10 


2 


5. 





10 


2 


5. 


20 


























21 









14 


2 


7 




14 


2 


7, 


22 









1 


1 


1 




1 


1 


1 


23 









2 


1 


2 




2 


1 


2 


24 


3 


1 


3 











3 


1 


3 


25 


15 


2 


7.5 











15 


2 


7. 5 


26 


8 


1 


8 


2 


1 


2 




10 


2 


5. 


27 


6 


I 


6 











6 


1 


6 


28 


1 


1 


1 


2 


1 


2 




3 


2 


1. 5 


29 


3 


1 


3 











3 


1 


3 


30 


























31 


1 


1 


1 


19 


2 


9. 


5 


20 


3 


6. 6 


32 


5 


1 


5 











5 


1 


5 


33 


3 


1 


3 











3 


1 


3 


34 


19 


3 


6.3 


6 


1 


6 




25 


4 


6.2 


35 


























36 


4 


1 


4 


4 


1 


4 




8 


2 


4. 


37 


2 


1 


2 


10 


1 


IC 


i 


12 


2 


6.0 


38 


























39 


























40 


























41 









7 


1 


7 




7 


1 


7 


S 


165 


30 


5.5 


165 


30 


5. 


5 


330 


60 


5. 5 



Appendix 2:3 



Table 3. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality variables 
for the ego and pupil dimensions, based on R^; Perception 



Ego (p) 


Pupil (p) 


Sp 


Sf 


P 


Test No. 


















3 


2 


5 


2 


2.5 




7 


18 


25 


4 


6.3 


3 


28 


34 


62 


9 


6.9 


4 


31 . 


20 


51 


8 


6.4 


5 


3 


3 


6 


2 


3.0 




1 


6 


7 


2 


3.5 




1 


21 


22 


4 


5.5 


8 


14 


8 


22 


5 


4.4 




17 


21 


38 


7 


5.4 




7 





7 


2 


3.5 




4 


16 


20 


3 


6.7 


12 


13 


10 


23 


5 


4.6 




9 


10 


19 


2 


9.5 


14 


8 


14 


22 


4 


5.5 


15 



















5 





5 


1 


5.0 





















6 


10 


16 


3 


5.3 
























14 


14 


2 


7.0 


21 


5 


1 


6 


2 


3.0 




9 


2 


11 


2 


5.5 


23 


5 


3 


8 


2 


4.0 




8 


15 


23 


3 


7.7 


25 


16 


10 


26 


4 


6.5 


26 


4 


6 


10 


2 


5.0 




10 


3 


13 


3 


4,3 




10 


3 


13 


3 


4.3 




13 





13 


3 


4,3 




5 


20 


25 


5 


5,0 







5 


5 


1 


5,0 




5 


3 


8 


2 


4.0 




26 


25 


51 


7 


7.3 


34 


6 





6 


1 


6.0 


35 


14 


8 


22 


4 


5. 5 


36 


11 


12 


23 


4 


5^8 


37 


15 





15 


3 


5.0 




1 





1 


1 


1.0 




9 





9 


2 


4.5 







7 


7 


1 


7.0 


41 



Appendix 2:4 



Table 4. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality variables 
for the ego dimension, based on R^: Evaluation 



Test 



ML 1 
points (p) 



1 





2 





3 





4 


22 


5 





6 


7 


7 


3 


8 


3 


9 


1 


10 





11 





12 


8 


13 


10 


14 





15 





16 





17 





18 





19 





20 





21 


3 


22 





23 


7 


24 


6 


25 


5 


26 





27 





28 


8 


29 


9 


30 





31 


9 


32 


5 


33 





34 





35 





36 


12 


37 





38 


4 


39 





40 


13 


41 


9 



1 

2 

1 
1 



144 



2 

1 

2 
1 

24 








7.3 

7 

1.5 
3 
1 


8 
10 



3 


7 
6 
5 


8 
9 


9 

5 



6 
4 



ML 2 f 

points (p) 



6.5 
9.0 

6.0 150 



Sp 



Sf 



Sp 

































8 


1 


8 


8 


1 


8 


21 


3 


7.0 


43 


6 


7.1 


14 


3 


4.6 


14 


3 


4.6 


6 


1 


6 


13 


2 


6.5 


10 


1 


10 


13 


3 


4.3 










3 


1 


3.0 


9 


1 


9 


10 


2 


5.0 










































8 


1 


8 


3 


1 


3 


13 


2 


6.5 


















3 


2 


1.5 


3 


2 


1.5 


8 


1 


8 


8 


1 


8 
































13 


2 


6.5 


13 


2 


6.5 

























3 


1 


3.0 

















8 


1 


8 


15 


2 


7.5 










6 


1 


6.0 


5 


1 


5 


10 


2 


5.0 








































8 


1 


8. 










9 


1 


9.0 

















7 


1 


7 


16 


2 


8.0 










5 


1 


5.0 

















5 


1 


5 


5 


1 


5.0 

















10 


2 


5 


22 


4 


5.5 

















4 


1 


4 


8 


2 


4.0 

















7 


1 


7 


20 


3 


6.6 


9 


1 


9 


18 


2 


9.0 



24 



6. 2 



294 



49 



6.1 



Appendix 2:5 



Table 5. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality variables 
for the pupil dimension, based on R 2 : Evaluation 



Test 


ML 1 
points (p) 


f 


P 


ML 2 
points (p) 


f 


P 


Sp 


Sf 


Sp 


1 

























2 


4 


1 


4.0 









4 


1 


4. 


3 


2 


1 


2.0 









2 


1 


2.0 


4 


22 


3 


7.3 


10 


2 


5. 


32 


5 


6.4 


5 
























6 









8 


I 


8.0 


8 


1 


8.0 


7 
























8 


9 


2 


4.5 


2 


1 


2. 


11 


3 


3.7 


9 


9 


2 


4.5 


4 


1 


4. 


13 


3 


4.3 


10 


5 


I 


5.0 


3 


I 


3.0 


8 


2 


4. 


11 


6 


1 


6.0 


7 


I 


7.0 


13 


2 


6.5 


12 


6 


1 


6.0 










6 


1 


6. 


13 










9 


1 


9.0 


9 


1 


9.0 


14 


13 


2 


6.5 










13 


2 


6.5 


15 


5 


1 


5.0 


5 


1 


5. 


10 


2 


5.0 


16 









8 


1 


8. 


8 


1 


8. 


17 

























18 


6 


1 


6.0 










6 


1 


6 


19 









6 


1 


6.0 


6 


1 


6 


20 


7 


1 


7.0 










7 


1 


7 


21 


8 


1 


8.0 


6 


2 


3. 


14 


3 


4.7 


22 

























23 


9 


1 


9.0 


7 


1 


7.0 


16 


2 


8.0 


24 

























25 


16 


2 


8.0 


8 


1 


8.0 


24 


3 


8. 


26 


3 


1 


3.0 


4 


1 


4.0 


7 


2 


3.5 


27 


1 


1 


1.0 










1 


1 


1 


28 

























29 









5 


2 


2. 5 


5 


2 


2.5 


30 


10 


1 


10.0 










10 


1 


10.0 


31 


7 


1 


7.0 


8 


2 


4.0 


15 


3 


5.0 


32 









12 


2 


6. 


12 


2 


6.0 


33 

























34 

























35 









7 


1 


7.0 


7 


1 


7 


36 


5 


1 


5.0 


6 


1 


6. 


11 


2 


5.5 


37 


10 


1 


10.0 


23 


3 


7. 6 


33 


4 


8. 3 


38 

























39 

























40 


4 


2 


2.0 


7 


2 


3. 5 


11 


4 


2.8 


41 








10 


1 


10. 


10 


1 


10.0 


S 


167 


29 


5.8 


165 


30 


5. 5 


332 


59 


5.7 



Appendix 2:6 

Table 6. Rank order of the prediction values of the personality variables 
for the ego and pupil dimensions, based on R.2; Evaluation 



Test 


Ego (p) 


Pupil (p) 


2 


f 






P 


Test No. 


1 

























2 





4 


4 





1 


1 


4.0 




3 


8 


2 


10 


1 


1 


2 


5.0 




4 


43 


32 


75 


6 


5 


11 


6.8 


4 


5 


14 





14 


3 





3 


4.7 




6 


13 


8 


21 


2 


1 


3 


7.0 


6 


7 


13 





13 


3 





3 


4.3 




8 


3 


11 


14 


1 


3 


4 


3.5 




9 


10 


13 


23 


2 


3 


5 


4.6 




10 





8 


8 





2 


2 


4.0 




11 





13 


13 





2 


2 


6.5 


11 


12 


8 


6 


14 


1 


1 


2 


7.0 


12 


13 


13 


9 


22 


2 


1 


3 


7.3 


13 


14 





13 


13 





2 


2 


6.5 


14 


15 


3 


10 


13 


2 


2 


4 


3.3 




16 


8 


8 


16 


1 


1 


2 


8.0 


16 


17 

























18 





6 


6 





1 


1 


6.0 


18 


19 


13 


6 


19 


2 


1 


3 


6.3 


19 


20 





7 


7 





1 


1 


7.0 


20 


21 


3 


14 


17 


1 


3 


4 


4.3 




22 

























23 


15 


16 


31 


2 


2 


4 


7.8 


23 


24 


6 





6 


1 





1 


6.0 


24 


25 


10 


24 


34 


2 


3 


5 


6.8 


25 


26 





7 


7 





2 


2 


3.5 




27 





1 


1 





1 


1 


1.0 




28 


8 





8 


1 





1 


8.0 


28 


29 


9 


5 


14 


1 


2 


3 


4.7 




30 





10 


10 





I 


1 


10.0 


30 


31 


16 


15 


31 


2 


3 


5 


6.2 




32 


5 


12 


17 


1 


2 


3 


5.7 




33 

























34 


5 





5 


1 





1 


5.0 




35 





7 


7 





1 


1 


7.0 


35 


36 


22 


11 


33 


4 


2 


6 


5.5 




37 





33 


33 





4 


4 


8.3 


37 


38 


8 





8 


2 





2 


4.0 




39 

























40 


20 


11 


31 


3 


4 


7 


4.4 




41 


18 


10 


28 


2 


1 


3 


9.3 


41 









I 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 

7 
8 
9 

10 

il 

12 
13 
14 
IS 

16 

17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 



Table 1 . Product-moment correlations between 

the predictor variables designated in Box 3 
and the subject-object relations 

Personality variables 

12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 



[0 



11 



12 



13 



14 



15 



16 



Micro-lesson 1, perception 
Subject- object relations 



17 



13 



19 



20 



21 



22 



Micro-lesson 2, perception 
Subject -object relations 



18 



1<1 



20 



2! 



22 



. 07 


-. 13 


-.06 


. 21 


. 59 


. 03 


-. 02 


. 29 


. 06 


04 


-.04 


-. 10 


. 19 


-. 04 


. 04 


. 05 


.06 


. 05 


. 23 


. 10 


.05 


-.05 


. 23 


.09 


-.04 


-.01 


. 29 


. 10 


. 17 


.39 


. 15 


-. 20 


. 01 


. 41 


. 03 


16 


.16 


-. 14 


. 39 


-.08 


. 26 


. 14 


. 09 


.25 


. 19 


. 07 


.24 


-.03 


. 09 


.24 


.01 


-.09 




.14 


-. 26 


-. 09 


•• 08 


. 42 


-.44 


-. 35 


. 02 - 


14 


-.03 


. 01 


-. 06 


-. 03 


-. 20 


-.15 


-. 20 


-. 20 


. 03 


-. 09 


-.11 


-.12 


-.15 


. 03 


. 07 


-.03 






.16 


-. 09 


-. 28 


-. 10 


-.36 


-.06 


-. 16 


17 


.16 


. 07 


-. 01 


-.01 


. 27 


. 07 


. 11 


. 12 


. 03 


-. 01 


.08 


.05 


.06 


. 17 


.08 


.08 








-. 06 


. 12 


-. 21 


-. 07 


. 25 


. 13 


14 


-.04 


-. 17 


. 07 


-. 01 


.27 


. 06 


. 15 


. 13 


-. 11 


. 03 


.07 


.09 


. 10 


-.08 


-. 08 


-.03 










. 31 


. 05 


. 01 


. 25 


. 16 


11 


-. 13 


-. 33 


. 23 


. 11 


-.06 


-. 20 


-.12 


-. 21 


. 00 


-. 17 


-.12 


-.1 1 


-.20 


.08 


. 09 


-.05 












. 01 


. 11 


. 31 


. 01 


13 


-. 20 


-. 24 


. 16 


. 13 


. 01 


-.06 


-. 01 


-.07 


, 08 


. 31 


-.16 


-.13 


-.06 


-.04 


-.11 


-.06 














-. 20 


-. 30 


. 03 - 


05 


-.04 


-. 00 


-. 07 


. 01 


-. 14 


-.09 


-.17 


-. 16 


. 11 


-. 06 


-.13 


-. 18 


-.07 


-.12 


.05 


.03 
















. 08 


.09 - 


03 


-. 13 


. 01 


-. 27 


. 01 


. 07 


. 01 


-.13 


. 03 


-. 20 


-. 09 


-.05 


.01 


-.11 


-. 07 


-. 14 


-.05 


















. 02 


08 


-.03 


-. 09 


-. 24 


-. 01 


. 28 


. 17 


. 26 


. 32 


.22 


. 17 


. 26 


. 18 


. 17 


.34 


.08 


-. 04 




















43 


. 11 


-. 19 


. 07 


. 30 


-. 09 


-. 04 


-. 04 


. 08 


.05 


-. 18 


-.21 


-.17 


-.06 


.04 


-.16 


-.08 






















. 11 


-. 03 


. 13 


.39 


-. 13 


-. 08 


. 13 


. 00 


-.04 


-. 03 


-.32 


-.13 


-. 14 


.01 


-. 19 


-. 14 
























. 17 


. 14 


.06 


. 11 


. 16 


. 18 


. 11 


. 15 


. 13 


. 18 


. 10 


.32 


.09 


-.03 


.05 


























-. 16 


.01 


. 03 


. 14 


. 04 


-. 09 


. 01 


. 12 


.06 


.16 


.14 


.05 


.08 


. 17 




























-. 12 


. 05 

-. 10 


-. 09 
-. 01 

. 56 


. 01 
-. 17 

.48 

. 53 


-. 06 
-. 19 

.43 
. 52 
. 43 


. 06 
-. 07 

. 22 
.45 
. 35 
. 42 


-.02 
-. 02 

. 30 

. 51 
. 55 
. 31 
. 54 


.19 
-.30 


-.01 

-.23 

.63 


.19 
-.26 

.66 
.51 


. 10 
-. 23 

.41 
.46 
.48 


.01 

-. 20 

.45 
.49 

.47 
. 52 


.00 

-.3 3 

. 33 
.48 
.43 
.23 
.48 



> 

a 









Table 2. Product-moment correlations between the 
predictor variables designated in Box 3 
and the subject- object relations 
Personality variables 

123456789 10 11 



I 

2 

3 
1 

5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

in 
11 

12 

13 

14 
15 

16 

17 

18 
19 
20 
.'.1 
22 
23 



12 



13 



14 



15 



16 



17 



Micro-lesson 1, evaluation Micro-lesson 2, evaluation 
Subject-object relations Subject- object relations 



18 



19 



20 



21 



22 



2 3 



19 



20 



21 



22 



23 



-. 07 



21 


. 29 


-. 01 


. 05 


. 06 


-. 23 


. 06 


. 01 


-. 08 


-. 17 


-. 35 


. 18 


. 14 


-. 01 


-. 05 


- . 02 


-. 07 


16 


-.09 


-.05 


. 22 


.05 


-.06 


. 10 


.06 


. 12 


.09 


16 


-. 11 


.06 


.08 


-. 14 


.05 


-. 28 


. 12 


-. 06 


-.09 


. 10 


. 00 


-. 13 


, 01 


. 21 


.26 


-. 09 - 


13 


-. 10 


-. 05 


-. 03 


.05 


.02 


-.22 


-.19 


-.29 


.11 




-. 04 


. 11 


. 13 


-. 03 


. 04 


. 13 


. 02 


.43 


. 11 


. 16 


-.09 


.04 


-. 18 


-. 15 


.01 


. 02 - 


07 


. 12 


-. 04 


-. 06 


-. 11 


-.09 


-.05 


. 17 


.02 


-.12 






-. 01 


. 23 


. 03 


-. 07 


.21 


. 10 


-. 15 


. 21 


-. 01 


.16 


. 12 


-. 16 


-. 18 


-.08 


-. 14 - 


02 


. 05 


.08 


. 15 


-.13 


-.14 


.01 


. 11 


. 08 


.14 








.03 


. 28 


. 01 


. 23 


-. 23 


-. 09 


-. 13 


-. 01 


. 20 


. 26 


.06 


. 13 


. 11 


. 04 


21 


. 04 


. 08 


. 03 


-. 15 


.02 


. 04 


.07 


-.00 


.06 










-, 08 


. 15 


. 16 


. 10 


. 07 


. 23 


. 38 


.16 


. 19 


. 03 


-.25 


-.05 


. 05 


06 


. 11 


-. 10 


. 06 


-. 03 


.12 


. 15 


.09 


. 03 


.01 












-. 08 


. 28 


-. 14 


-. 10 


. 18 


. 14 


. 25 


. 34 


. 17 


-.01 


-. 05 


. 13 


3i 


-.03 


.06 


. 16 


.04 


.06 


.20 


-.05 


. 15 


. 19 














. 11 


. 07 


. 15 


. 08 


. 14 


. 25 


. 22 


. 14 


-. 31 


. 16 


. 17 - 


12 


. 17 


. 0J 


. 11 


. 15 


.03 


.05 


.20 


.01 


-.13 
















. 00 


. 01 


. 31 


. 15 


.43 


. 59 


. 16 


-. 35 


. 03 


. 16 


07 


. 10 


. 01 


. 01 


.04 


-.03 


. 01 


.06 


.24 


.08 


















-. 02 


-. 26 


-. 21 


-. 01 


-. 05 


.01 


. 07 


. 11 


. 04 - 


05 


. 02 


-. 17 


-. 01 


.05 


.18 


. 01 


-.08 


-. 15 


-. 12 




















. 16 


-. 03 


-. 10 


.06 


-. 28 


-. 22 


. 29 


-.02 - 


13 


. 09 


. 10 


-. 05 


.17 


-.15 


-. 17 


.13 


. 12 


-. 18 






















. 39 


. 14 


. 21 


-. 00 


-. 34 


. 06 


. 01 - 


06 


. 08 


. 11 


-. 08 


-.04 


-.25 


-. 10 


-.01 


. 15 


.05 
























. 18 


. 24 


. 07 


-.14 


-. 02 


. 10 


08 


. 19 


. 01 


-. 12 


-.04 


.04 


.07 


.05 


.02 


-.01 


























. 70 


. 34 


-. 12 


. 08 


. 13 


09 


. 10 


-. 10 


-. 15 


.05 


.08 


. 08 


.09 


. 0! 


-09 




























. 17 


-. 28 
-.01 


-. 01 
-. 13 
-. 04 


. 14 
. 17 
. 03 

. 23 


16 
03 

07 

14 

48 


. 15 

. 06 

-.15 

-. 16 
-.06 
-. 06 


. 03 

. 11 
-. 04 

.06 
.08 
. 02 
. 06 


-. 05 

. 07 

-. 01 

. 09 

. 27 

. 13 

-. 08 

. 17 


.08 
.04 
.05 


.05 

.07 
.18 

.21 


. 05 
. 10 
.06 

.26 
.40 


. 13 
.01 

-. 13 

. 02 

-.07 

.12 


. 11 

.09 

-.21 

. 12 

-. 15 

.03 

.33 


. 01 
. 13 
.16 

.04 

.16 

.09 

-.31 

-.16 



> 



« • 



s 9? 

03 O 

j* 2. 
CO ° 

s 2 

cd m 
o. o_ 

CD c 

3 o 

a> 
o' 

3 



TJIT1D 

<2 Q- CD 

^ c ~a 

o o p 

O H" d" 

o" o" 3 

(Q 3 CD 

s- B 3. 

o — «f 
89 

-P O 

CD 
0) 
CD 
S> 

o 

3" 



Abstract card 



Reference card 



Bierschenk, B. Externally mediated self- confrontation: The in- 
fluence of personality on the perception and evaluation of 
subject-object relations. Ed ucational and Psycholog ical 
Interactions (Malmo, Sweden; School of Education77No7"5 2, 

1975. ' 

This report presents an analysis of the influence of perso- 
nality on the student teachers' perception and evaluation 
during confrontations with their own video -recorded micro- 
lessons. Using a number of multivariate data analysis mo- 
dels, a study was made in order to investigate prediction 
problems and the psychological content of the relations 
between different groups of variables. The student 
teachers' perception can best be predicted by means of 
personality variables that define an extroversion syndrome, 
social plasticity and child- centredness. The student 
teachers' evaluation can best b,e predicted by means of 
personality variables that define an emotionality syndrome 
and a sensitivity syndrome. 

Indexed: 

1. Self- confrontation 

2. CCTV 

3. Multiple regression analysis 



Bierschenk, B. Externally mediated self- confrontation. The in- 
fluence of personality on the perception and evaluation of 
subject-object relations. Educational and Psychological 
Interactions (Malmo, Swe"den~: School of Education), No "52 
1975. 



ISSN 0070-9263